Ivermectin efficacy finally proven in ‘gold-standard’ RCT – Prof Colleen Aldous

[Batcat]

But you will trust Bill Gates?

I started to distrust him decades ago.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I started to distrust him decades ago.

He's the one funding the research for vermectin that you seem to like.

 

[Batcat]

He's the one funding the research for vermectin that you seem to like.

Funding good research is fine by me as long as, Gates stays away from influencing the results.

I just don’t trust him or his products.

Let's not forget, Bill Gates hasn't always been the good guyâ¦

A quarter of a century after the launch of Windows 95, it’s striking to remember the philanthropist we know today as a mogul hellbent on world domination

www.theguardian.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

Gates has never been the good guy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Funding good research is fine by me as long as, Gates stays away from influencing the results.

I just don’t trust him or his products.

Let's not forget, Bill Gates hasn't always been the good guyâ¦

A quarter of a century after the launch of Windows 95, it’s striking to remember the philanthropist we know today as a mogul hellbent on world domination

www.theguardian.com

Haha, it's like you can't decide which way to go.

You don't trust Ivermectin now that Gates is a part of it?

 

[Batcat]

Haha, it's like you can't decide which way to go.

You don't trust Ivermectin now that Gates is a part of it?

If good research shows ivermectin works I would use it. If junk science shows it works or doesn’t work I will not know which way to go.

Junk science is science mixed with politics.

Hopefully Bill Gates is financing real science not junk science.

 

[badger2]

If good research shows ivermectin works I would use it. If junk science shows it works or doesn’t work I will not know which way to go.

Junk science is science mixed with politics.

Hopefully Bill Gates is financing real science not junk science.

Gates lies. Post #19 does not. IVM works by multiple mechanisms. Either the time window is adhered or what Uttar Pradesh did is adhered to: prophylaxis. Any statistical speculation gets trumped by the science in post #19, circa 2000, because the stats will always already fail to document the time window of IVM efficacy in each individual. duh

 

[Batcat]

Gates lies. Post #19 does not. IVM works by multiple mechanisms. Either the time window is adhered or what Uttar Pradesh did is adhered to: prophylaxis. Any statistical speculation gets trumped by the science in post #19, circa 2000, because the stats will always already fail to document the time window of IVM efficacy in each individual. duh

You are obviously more into this subject than I am. Therefore I will accept your word on it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Ivermectin does not work on Covid as its proponents suggest. The science does not support their conclusions and hopes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If good research shows ivermectin works I would use it. If junk science shows it works or doesn’t work I will not know which way to go.

Junk science is science mixed with politics.

Hopefully Bill Gates is financing real science not junk science.

"good research" being WHAT?

How do you know this study is "good research"?

Is it "it says what I want it to say, therefore it's good?"

 

[Batcat]

"good research" being WHAT?

How do you know this study is "good research"?

Is it "it says what I want it to say, therefore it's good?"

For the average person determining if a research subject was conducted properly is difficult. Some studies are junk science and usually happen when considerable amounts of money has been invested in a potential product or when politicians with an agenda are involved.

Medical Expert: Flawed Research Can Harm Your Health

A new study provides tips for spotting medical research that is deeply flawed or fake and should not be trusted.

www.snopes.com

***snip***


As our recently published study reports, some studies look like their data has been massaged, some studies are not as well designed as they claim to be, and some may even be completely fabricated.

Our study provides some important ideas about how to spot medical research that is deeply flawed or fake and should not be trusted.

The experts we interviewed suggested some key questions that reviewers should ask about a study: For instance, did it have ethics approval? Was the clinical trial registered? Do the results seem plausible? Was the study funded by an independent source and not the company whose product is being tested?

If the answers to any of these questions is no, then further investigation of the study is needed.

In particular, my colleagues and I found that it’s possible for researchers who review and synthesize evidence to create a checklist of warning signs. These signs don’t categorically prove that research is fraudulent, but they do show researchers as well as the general public which studies need to be looked at more carefully. We used these warning signs to create a screening tool – a set of questions to ask about how a study is done and reported – that provide clues about whether a study is real or not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

For the average person determining if a research subject was conducted properly is difficult. Some studies are junk science and usually happen when considerable amounts of money has been invested in a potential product or when politicians with an agenda are involved.

Medical Expert: Flawed Research Can Harm Your Health

A new study provides tips for spotting medical research that is deeply flawed or fake and should not be trusted.

www.snopes.com

***snip***


As our recently published study reports, some studies look like their data has been massaged, some studies are not as well designed as they claim to be, and some may even be completely fabricated.

Our study provides some important ideas about how to spot medical research that is deeply flawed or fake and should not be trusted.

The experts we interviewed suggested some key questions that reviewers should ask about a study: For instance, did it have ethics approval? Was the clinical trial registered? Do the results seem plausible? Was the study funded by an independent source and not the company whose product is being tested?

If the answers to any of these questions is no, then further investigation of the study is needed.

In particular, my colleagues and I found that it’s possible for researchers who review and synthesize evidence to create a checklist of warning signs. These signs don’t categorically prove that research is fraudulent, but they do show researchers as well as the general public which studies need to be looked at more carefully. We used these warning signs to create a screening tool – a set of questions to ask about how a study is done and reported – that provide clues about whether a study is real or not.

Yes, it's difficult because people don't know the process. They'll say something is junk because it doesn't conform to what they want, or it'll be good because it does.

So, is this ivermectin study a good study?
I mean, the report isn't even out yet, impossible to even have a guess at. But people are still coming on here saying this is PROOF... it's not proof of anything other than people willing to use anything that fits their narrative as "proof".

 

[Batcat]

Yes, it's difficult because people don't know the process. They'll say something is junk because it doesn't conform to what they want, or it'll be good because it does.

So, is this ivermectin study a good study?
I mean, the report isn't even out yet, impossible to even have a guess at. But people are still coming on here saying this is PROOF... it's not proof of anything other than people willing to use anything that fits their narrative as "proof".

One big problem is that today a high percentage of the people in our nation have lost trust in their Federal government and its agencies.

Americans have never been known as trusting of their government but today the distrust appears to be increasing at an exponential rate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One big problem is that today a high percentage of the people in our nation have lost trust in their Federal government and its agencies.

Americans have never been known as trusting of their government but today the distrust appears to be increasing at an exponential rate.

View attachment 782643

I'm not surprised they've lost trust in the government.

The electoral system means people don't have a proper choice, the people who get to be the candidates for the two main parties are often just interested in making easy money for little work.

What do the people do about it? NOTHING. They accept the system. They don't fight to change it, they don't even try to understand it.
Who's fault is that? It's the people's fault for being ignorant and lazy.

But, in this modern world, EVERYONE is a fucking genius. If they haven't thought of something (usually by someone telling them to think something), then it can't be right because they didn't think of it.

So.... the people get a corrupt government that doesn't do what a government is supposed to do.

And the reason people are trusting it less and less is because of the internet. It's so easy now to manipulate people. Before you had to own a media organization, now you just need to spread stuff on the internet. And then there's TRUMP. Trump going around saying "don't trust anyone but ME, I'm the only one to trust", and he's so fucking untrustworthy.... but easily malleable people will trust less and less because it's ENTERFUCKINGTAINING.

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

Not good....

MedinCell’s RCT(1) – yet to be published in an academic journal....

You would be better off injecting bleach like the HUMAN CHEETOH said.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Download available for when it is retracted and pulled from the journal servers:

LOL! How do YOU spell BS?

 

[Godboy]

How many people died in the "it's horse dewormer!" campaign of vicious lies, intended to keep people dying so the vaxes could get approved under Emergency Use Authorization?

Ivermectin efficacy finally proven in ‘gold-standard’ RCT – Prof Colleen Aldous

A RCT on Ivermectin efficacy for preventing and treating COVID-19 has been released, as discussed in this article by Prof Colleen Aldous.

www.biznews.com

Large, well-designed randomised control study shows Ivermectin efficacy in preventing and treating COVID-19​

By Colleen Aldous, Phillip Oldfield

"Another large randomised control study on ivermectin efficacy for preventing and treating COVID-19 has been released to the public ahead of publication in an academic journal. But unlike negative results trials, there has not been a big international splash across the mainstream media coordinated by a large publicity agency such as Bell Pottinger. Why? Because the results are undeniably positive, showing the efficacy of ivermectin in reducing infection after exposure by 72%, documented in a press release on Jan 5 2023(1).

This is the best quality RCT we have yet seen published on ivermectin. It is called the SAIVE Trial (NCT 05305560)(2) and is part of MedinCell’s research supporting their development of a novel slow-release form of ivermectin. Although sparse results have been released so far, the quality of the study is apparent. A total of 399 unvaccinated participants completed the study as per the protocol. The number intended for treatment is not available yet, but I anticipate that the only difference would be that the ITT number for the control group may have been 200. Those participants who received daily oral ivermectin showed a 72% reduction in COVID-19 infection compared to the control group...."


All studies on Ivermectin as treatment for COVID: 62% to 82% improvement including prevention of death. Adopted in over 20 countries.

MANY people died because they believed the democrats when they said that it was "horse dewormer" and that it doesnt work at all. Had they taken Ivermectin, they would still be alive.

 

[AMart]

Trump mentioned ivermectin so ivermectin bad, very bad, orange man bad.

 

[Grumblenuts]

From OP:

the results are undeniably positive, showing the efficacy of ivermectin in reducing infection after exposure by 72%, documented in a press release on Jan 5 2023(1).

This is the best quality RCT we have yet seen published on ivermectin.

Compared to the placebo, presumably showing an efficacy of 50% i.e., 22% better than nothing. Given 400 select study subjects screened only for these few clearly inconsequential criteria:

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Age between 18 and 65 years, inclusive.
2. Body weight >45 kg.
3. Body Mass Index >18.5.
4. Close contact with a person who has a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days before screening.
5. Only one member in the same household will be enrolled.
6. Participants must be able to give informed consent and comply with the study's scheduled events/visits and study assessments.
7. SARS-CoV-2 positive index case must be able to give consent to enable collection of the documented positive PCR test.
8. Female participants of childbearing potential must use a highly effective method of contraception for the duration of the trial.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Pregnant or breast-feeding.
2. Participants who have been administered COVID-19 vaccine prior to the inclusion or have a planned vaccination during the duration of the study.
3. A positive COVID-19 result (PCR or antigen test) within 8 days of screening.
4. Presence of typical COVID-19 symptoms (fever >38°C, SpO2 below 93%, dyspnoea, difficulty breathing, chills, repeated shaking with chills, ageusia, anosmia, cough, myalgia, headache) in the past 48 hours prior to screening.
5. Hypersensitivity to any component of ivermectin.
6. Participants who have been administered ivermectin within 30 days prior to screening.
7. Participation in another interventional trial within the last 30 days or 5 half-lives of the IMP of the other trial, whichever comes first.
8. Participants with gastrointestinal erosions and ulcers (e.g. erosive esophagitis, stomach ulcers, ulcerative colitis etc.).
9. History of neurotoxicity with ivermectin or other para-glycoprotein (p-gp) substrates or inhibitors.
10. Current use of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

One big problem is that today a high percentage of the people in our nation have lost trust in their Federal government and its agencies.

Americans have never been known as trusting of their government but today the distrust appears to be increasing at an exponential rate.

View attachment 782643

Distrust of the government is about the same as distrust of MAGA.