Coronavirus | Discussion

BBC is one of the initiators of "TRUSTED NEWS INITIATIVE TO COMBAT SPREAD OF HARMFUL VACCINE DISINFORMATION"
https://www.ebu.ch/news/2020/12/tru...mbat-spread-of-harmful-vaccine-disinformation

This 'initiative' obviously tries to censor anything that could be a competitor to the vaccines.
The BBC article you have posted is a load of assumptions. There is no reference to the mentioned studies nor a proof that studies should have been manipulated.

The psychology of the BBC and others to 'kill' IVM is to lie and to bend facts.
In fact most IVM articles have been rejected because nobody wanted to have good results being published.

I evaluated studies myself applying 'my professional skills' and I came to the conclusion that IVM works.
This BBC article is no issue for me. I know that they are spreading lies.

I also know lots of docs using IVM with success.
And I am not alone with my assessment.

How often one has to repeat lies until they become public truth?

As being said....the MSM landscape is poisoned, you never will get there real info.
Anything there is distorted. Journalism is within its greatest crisis of losing independence and proper art of journalism itself.
And also they have 'scientists' on their side. Those being involved in big pharma and big money.
This is actually 'the issue' I am worried about.

There is a power behind that glorifies vaccines and diminishes any repurposed drug. (competitor)...
Results that might harm the vaccines are suppressed..and also good results of alternatives are.

Any previous SARS vaccine development has been halted due to ADE.
But this time they simply skipped the tests before and they even DO NOT check virus levels (I mean real levels) and compare them to the unvaxxed.

For the people (reader) it's hard to make a valid opinion.
Finally all appears to be a mutual 'blaming' of each others to spread misinformation.

But who's 'missing'...with intent?

Paul Marik
P. Kory
Joseph Varon
Hector Carvallo
Eric Osgood
Tess Lawrie
Syed Haider

and many more...

All people with great reputation and loads of scientific publications in the past.
Their expertise is based on profession and without conflicts of interest.

 

Are you serious?
Studies are not obvious per se. And each days docs administering IVM are preventing deaths and suffering already. You only have to listen to them. (Not on youtube anymore?!?)
You have to make the efforts to read them.
There is no fertile soil on the MSM landscape.

Or do you really want to say that when I posted."I evaluated studies myself applying 'my professional skills' and I came to the conclusion that IVM works." I was dreaming of a cent dug of which I got possessed for whatever reason.
I especially purchased IVM, Fluoxetine and Budesonide because I am a fool not wanting to have it 'real' that only the vaccines can help me / humans???

The references I have posted to the 5 MOAs are building the back frame of proper reasoning that IVM has mechanisms that can be helpful to fight COVID-19.
And then one goes further (this is proper science and research BTW) for instance following this summary: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf and checking each study.

And THEN point to certain contents of those studies on which you have doubts! I am willing to debate then.

Or just have a look here...and check for 'facts'...https://ivmmeta.com/


IVM is NOT the holy grail.
But an additional beneficial drug!

BTW did you know this?
https://www.reuters.com/business/he...d-vaccine-cites-rare-side-effects-2021-10-06/
And who said to vaccinate below 26 is irresponsible?
(I know this is MSM as well. But the fact that those 2 nations have paused Moderna can be easily verified).
Not to forget that Sweden has a rather loose politics on the pandemic and anyway they are concerned.
So shouldn't we all open our eyes and be concerned?

Your latest argument does actually not apply to positive studies of a cent drug. Especially when they don't come from the makers themselves....
To negative studies it would, though. Especially the JAMA study if you see who has made it. (people who are involved in vaccines).

Finally studies cost money. So they have to be paid.
And contrary to the vaccines the studies are not made by the 'makers'...the maker of IVM Merck even suppresses it and spreads lies themselves. For instance about safety of IVM.

The reason for it it obvious. They have a conflict of interest named Molnupiravir.
It has failed at the flu as being an anti viral and now they want to make money with COVID. It Is not off-patent as IVM is.

 

The site https://ivmmeta.com/ is 'just' a place for a start.
The process to make an own opinion takes efforts, though.(I had a lot of time during lock-down). It took countless of hours.

Generally when you scroll through it you notice that there are the majority of studies 'favouring IVM and NOT control'. This is first....

Each study comes with its own study design.
You have to declare an endpoint before you start the study.
This is mandatory. You later could pull the data you like to 'create' another endpoint which suits your needs more.
To figure them out you have to refer to the particular study you mean. And then you could spot there 'issues' for valid criticism.
I am sure the one or other study has that. No question.

When you summarize those studies then you have to define more global categories to where you assign then the studies to.
Early treatment (treat immediately on symptoms or shortly after)
Late treatment (late stage after disease has progresses)
Prophylaxis. (regularly take medications on advance to prevent or minimize infections)

And maybe exclusion criteria such as peer reviewed only. Or RCTs only (randomized controlled trials). Or IVM only at treatment arm.

Then you'll see. IVM works at best at prophylaxis. Then early treatment and with lowest efficacy at late treatment.
One thing turned out to be clear, and that makes sense: Effectiveness may depend critically on treatment delay.

If you want more specified categories then you go probably to ICU or ventilation conditions...

Once spotted the categories you are interested in you research for the source of the particular study and evaluate it further. (Some are not free and cost money).
You simply click on the link to the study...and go to...

For instance then here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389
or here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750021000445
or: https://www.jcdr.net/articles/PDF/14529/46795_CE[Ra]_F(Sh)_PF1(SY_OM)_PFA_(OM)_PN(KM).pdf
or..https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-495945/v1

At each study then you'll find how it is designed with all details.
You can see if it meets your sort of a claim of a proper study.

I picked only those using IVM alone as a drug to make my opinion.
I also used observational studies. I don't have an issue taking such into consideration.

And if you then only get studies which are personally not 'convincing' for whatever reason (maybe there is always a reason for personal criticism) only then one can say IMO IVM does not really work. Or ....good so far but not sufficient or whatever...

I did that and I came to the conclusion it does work.
And I'll take it (again) as soon I have symptoms (again) which could be from COVID.
I also posted why I do not go for prophylaxis generally...

But all my 'ideas' come from the results of studies I have read.
There is a conviction based on profession.

There is no reason for me not to grant EUA for it.
If we would have that we had more results. And the safety of IVM is unquestionably high. Nothing to lose.

 

You make a statement contrary to their analyses. Can you post an approach reasoning your idea that results are not robust? Did they fake numbers?
From 'where' do you get that?

And do you apply the same criteria of being robust THERE you applied to the vaccines studies?
There is 'something' what made you to take the vaccines. Apply the same rationality at IVM, too, please.

 

There is obviously unreasonable resistance. And there is censorship. YouTube videos on IVM where a MD simply talked about own successes got deleted etc.
And lots of articles published such as your BBC article...
There are others who are the same way upset about than me.

Many front line docs have sent papers to authorities, but got rejected with common blah blah.
It's a structural and regulatory issue (big pharma and lobbyist influence). Maybe also a legal issue. (A repurposed drug that could turnout to be effective might question the EUAs of the vaccines).

I think it was there already and not 'suddenly'. It has just taken a drastic form at the ongoing pandemic.

How works drug research and development in our society? 'Who' can have hope for a cure especially when there is no opportunity to make money involved?
If you have a rare sickness, there is no money to make....if one has a superior drug, but not enough financial means to realize it and get it to market, another one gets approved. Not always the best one.

The priority in decision making is not to the benefit for humans at first place.
At recent pandemic there is clearly focus on new stuff. New vaccines and new drugs.
We have vaccines now, but nothing really for treatment yet. No efforts on treatment. Just a 'waiting' for new drugs.

Can we morally afford this? I guess not.
There are many docs using IVM already. Also it's part of treatment protocols.

But the actual job of the WHO for instance is utterly missed. Benefits for humanity and human health.

 

@gorski
If you are really interested in this here is a video.



The title is "Molnupiravir, Bamlanivimab, Remdesivir, and Ivermectin Studies"
Dr. Mobeen Syed presents studies of Bamlanivimab and Remdesivir which lead to their EUA.
He presents the study of Molnupiravir which probably will lead to EUA and he picks up one IVM study from that panel that I posted already.

He compares their design and statistical powers. He clearly illustrates which criteria for EUA the FDA has / had!
And he compares exactly those criteria to the IVM study.
This is a 'guided' way to look at the studies. But very objective.

If you don't want to have that 'guided' he always posts any sources at the description of the video.
You can get and read all the studies on your own.

For Remdesivir there is even a WHO study "Covid-19: Remdesivir has little or no impact on survival, WHO trial shows"
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4057
Anyway it has still EUA

Your reply from above is about what you personally think. And that is (unfortunately) very wrong.
The criteria for EUA applied on those new drugs (oh well Molnupiravir is from 2014 already) are very low.
Which is rightly so we have a pandemic!!!

BUT IF they would stay conform to their criteria they MUST EUA IVM as well.

There is an active resistance on IVM which costs countless of lives!

You can now keep your gut feeling that 'we' don't have a major issue at the authorities and 'big science'. Or....

You objectively evaluate yourself the criteria of those already EUA'd drugs and Molnupiravir that will probably get it and compare to IVM.

If you cannot do that or don't want, then....there is me, Yen, who evaluated that on a professional base and you who 'believes' that it is not that way and we can stop here.

 

"A new study estimates that from April 2020 to the end of June this year, more than 140,000 American children lost their mother, father or caregivers to Covid-19, who provided them with housing, basic needs and daily care, of which as many as 65 percent came from minority communities ... "
Translated....

This is not a game to mess around with. Absolutely!

I have picked one source from the video above. I didn't know that as well before.
"Quality and strength of evidence of the Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guidelines "

This is about basic criteria / clinical practise guidelines for their recommendations. (Remember, you mentioned being robust.)

50% of their recommendations are supported by level III evidence (derived from expert opinion)
31% of them by evidence from observational studies (level II) (Remember I said I have no problems including observational studies)

Only 16% of them by RCTs (level I), which is the 'gold standard'.

Even half of the recommendations of IDSA are based on / derived from expert opinions. Not underlined by any studies done.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20946067/

To that base, the current guidelines, we have to relate.
And although for IVM there are 31 RCTs supporting it there is STLL resistance.

There is something utterly wrong going on.