Ivermectin Not Effective
03-18-2022, 07:53 AM
#1
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,202
Ivermectin Not Effective
WSJ reports that a large study shows ivermection has zero efficacy in preventing hospitalization, vs a placebo.
"There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, one of the study’s lead researchers and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Mills on Friday plans to present the findings, which have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, at a public forum sponsored by the National Institutes of Health."
Paywall, so can't post a link but it's on the front page. WSJ is a conservative and reliable news source.
"There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, one of the study’s lead researchers and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Mills on Friday plans to present the findings, which have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, at a public forum sponsored by the National Institutes of Health."
Paywall, so can't post a link but it's on the front page. WSJ is a conservative and reliable news source.
03-18-2022, 08:09 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 146
"Experts" conducted a "Study" that said "Ivermectin is no good against Covid."
I skimmed it, it looks like a fine article. However, I just can't bring myself to much stock in it.
Everyone has been inundated with stories about "studies" done by "experts," over the past two years. The results are often conflicting, the conclusions later proven untrue, and there is just a huge amount of fear, uncertainty, and doubt out there. I'm over it, as I think most other folks are. It's just another data point that I can't put much faith in one way or the other.
I'm sure there are a million Karen's out there that are running to post if to social media though, while adding some virtue-signaling commentary.
I skimmed it, it looks like a fine article. However, I just can't bring myself to much stock in it.
Everyone has been inundated with stories about "studies" done by "experts," over the past two years. The results are often conflicting, the conclusions later proven untrue, and there is just a huge amount of fear, uncertainty, and doubt out there. I'm over it, as I think most other folks are. It's just another data point that I can't put much faith in one way or the other.
I'm sure there are a million Karen's out there that are running to post if to social media though, while adding some virtue-signaling commentary.
03-18-2022, 08:43 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Position: MD88
Posts: 1,356
Of course they did 3 days, and it never says the dosage given.
The recommended course of treatment is, and has consistently been, 5 days.
I won’t talk to dosage as the WSJ article didn’t either, except to say although it’s higher than dosage for other applications, it less than the 100 times higher mentioned in the article.
Guess my question is, why do they not test the protocol developed and claimed successful against early Covid?
Just wave when you walk past my unmasked, unvaxxed, uniformed, smiling face in the terminal. As long as you keep your mask on in the crew lounge the rest of us will be ok….
The recommended course of treatment is, and has consistently been, 5 days.
I won’t talk to dosage as the WSJ article didn’t either, except to say although it’s higher than dosage for other applications, it less than the 100 times higher mentioned in the article.
Guess my question is, why do they not test the protocol developed and claimed successful against early Covid?
Just wave when you walk past my unmasked, unvaxxed, uniformed, smiling face in the terminal. As long as you keep your mask on in the crew lounge the rest of us will be ok….
03-18-2022, 11:03 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by rickair7777
WSJ is a conservative and reliable news source.
That said, the WSJ still has to pay the bills. As such, they're subject to printing the same yellow journalism as anyone else. Covid is the gift that keeps on giving to the journalism profession. Masks! Vaccines! Dreaded Anti-Vaxxers! Politicians! Experts! New Studies! It's a never-ending soap opera. A comic book for adults.
I'll step off my soapbox, but just because something appears in the WSJ, doesn't mean it's automatically something of great worth to society.
03-18-2022, 01:31 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2022
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by fasteddie800
"Experts" conducted a "Study" that said "Ivermectin is no good against Covid."
I skimmed it, it looks like a fine article. However, I just can't bring myself to much stock in it.
Everyone has been inundated with stories about "studies" done by "experts," over the past two years. The results are often conflicting, the conclusions later proven untrue, and there is just a huge amount of fear, uncertainty, and doubt out there. I'm over it, as I think most other folks are. It's just another data point that I can't put much faith in one way or the other.
I'm sure there are a million Karen's out there that are running to post if to social media though, while adding some virtue-signaling commentary.
I skimmed it, it looks like a fine article. However, I just can't bring myself to much stock in it.
Everyone has been inundated with stories about "studies" done by "experts," over the past two years. The results are often conflicting, the conclusions later proven untrue, and there is just a huge amount of fear, uncertainty, and doubt out there. I'm over it, as I think most other folks are. It's just another data point that I can't put much faith in one way or the other.
I'm sure there are a million Karen's out there that are running to post if to social media though, while adding some virtue-signaling commentary.
03-18-2022, 04:23 PM
#9
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,998
Ivermectin. Blue light in lungs. Malaria medication. Mega-dosing on vitamin D. Let's not forget household antiseptics in the blood stream...a little dab of lysol'll do ya (apparently).
Idiots.
That it's flying off the shelves lends no credence. Just follows the simply fact that a fool and his money are easily divided.
Simply because a lot of idiots fall for the same myth, does nothing to make it fact. It doesn't make them any brighter, either.
Idiots.
That it's flying off the shelves lends no credence. Just follows the simply fact that a fool and his money are easily divided.
Simply because a lot of idiots fall for the same myth, does nothing to make it fact. It doesn't make them any brighter, either.
03-18-2022, 07:37 PM
#10
All is fine at .79
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 4,082
Originally Posted by Abouttime2fish
Just wave when you walk past my unmasked, unvaxxed, uninformed, smiling face in the terminal. As long as you keep your mask on in the crew lounge the rest of us will be ok….
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
