Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
InvisiblefeeversM
Male


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: koods]
    #27086036 - 12/12/20 04:26 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9768999400

Unfortunately many doctors don’t have the greatest research skills. Positive results from in vitro studies do not at all mean something will work in vivo. I could pick a random supplement or chemical out of my closet and have a decent chance it could show promising in vitro results against a virus.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27086100 - 12/12/20 05:04 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

feevers said:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9768999400



From your article:  “We need to get much more data before we can say this is a definitive treatment”

Do you have the "much more data" that is needed showing it doesn't work?




No, you’re misinterpreting the quote and how this kind of research works if you think that’s necessary. We don’t say something works just because we haven’t yet proved that it doesn’t. Once we have proof that something works, that’s when we say it works. This drug is not there yet and likely never will be.

In vitro and preliminary studies lead to all sorts of media twists and “miracle cure” pushers like this guy. At this point there is more preliminary evidence that smoking cigarettes is an effective prophylactic than there is for this drug. This guy is almost certainly a charlatan who either lacks research skills/knowledge or more likely is grifting.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27086771 - 12/13/20 06:04 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:]
Now HERE'S where I need your expertise.

After a study in Argentina on 1200 healthcare workers, 800 of whom were given ivermectin and didn't get Covid, 400 of whom didn't get ivermectin of which over 50% caught Covid, PLUS four new studies on 1,500 people showing similar results, how do you know it likely will never work?




Do you have a link to the study. I checked the usual databases and couldn't find that one. If it's new I haven't seen it yet, if it's the old one that was getting passed around frequently the data was not reliable and the study has been pulled. A physician at my wife's hospital was actually a co-author on the paper and hes the one who requested it be pulled, not sure if its the one you're referring to though.

Quote:

"One of the most influential studies on ivermectin’s effect in COVID-19 patients was a large observational study that used a database owned by Surgisphere, a now-discredited Illinois-based company founded by vascular surgeon Sapan Desai. That study, published on the preprint server SSRN in early April and updated a couple weeks later, reported a strong positive association between ivermectin treatment and COVID-19 patient survival, and has been cited in white papers and reports by Latin American health researchers and governments as evidence of the drug’s efficacy

But the preprint disappeared at the end of May after scientists began pointing out problems with Surgisphere’s dataset—which by that point had been used in high-profile studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Lancet. Both journals issued retractions earlier this month after Desai’s coauthors said they were unable to verify the validity of Surgisphere’s COVID-19 patient data. Investigations by The Scientist and The Guardian also revealed discrepancies in Surgisphere’s claims going back years, and the company’s website has now been taken offline. Desai did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Scientist."



https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/surgisphere-sows-confusion-about-another-unproven-covid19-drug-67635



If the drug works, that's incredible and I'm happy to be wrong. The problem is that this exact same scenario has played out with handfuls of drugs already. In-vitro studies are miraculous, observational studies look promising, then the drug's efficacy falls apart once it's put to a more rigorous test. Because of COVID these studies that have large and dangerous flaws get published on an accelerated schedule before data is verified and peer review is completed. Until I see blinded rct's or more verifiable data from respected researchers, it makes no sense to think this drug will be any different from the other miracle drugs.

COVID acts in such a way that it seems very unlikely that standard/safe doses of any drug not specifically developed for the virus will act as an effective prophylactic, most drugs that have shown results are given to already sick people in large doses in hospital settings. Data in the in vitro studies suggest that even a dose 10x what the FDA recommends as safe had results that were below the effective/therapeutic level.

Results from one study found that standard doses of ivermectin in humans showed no effect with COVID on either a clinical level or a microbiological level.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: wolf8312]
    #27086788 - 12/13/20 06:21 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

wolf8312 said:
Interesting that certain (left wing/liberal?) members of this political forum would immediately seek to attack the integrity of a doctor who is working on the front-lines saving lives!

A man fighting for and watching his patients die on a daily basis is predictably but much more worryingly immediately branded a dishonest charlatan or loon by some (themselves very dubious) posters on an internet forum with no medical training and lets be honest no idea if what this highly qualified professor is saying is actually correct or not! Nah lets just smear him!

And what hard hitting evidence do they propose exposes this dastardly and cowardly money grubbing charlatan?

He was wearing a lab coat!




So not only do you easily believe unfounded claims, but you spout them as well.

Anyting that goes against your narrow view of reality is liberal propaganda, right? Taking cues from Trump I see. I totally trust your judgement on analyzing medical reserach. I'm sure you have a PhD in Youtube.

Please tell me how you know about my medical and research background. Where am I working right now? I'll give you a hint, it involves a hazmat suit at the moment.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: HamHead]
    #27086908 - 12/13/20 08:36 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

HamHead said:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184

For this retrospective study, we identified hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving IVM between March 10th and 30th 2020 in Hospital Clinic in Barcelona, Spain. Patients from countries endemic for Strongyloides stercoralis receiving immunosuppressant drugs such as corticosteroids or tocilizumab for COVID-19 were empirically treated with IVM 200μg/kg, single dose, following standard hospital procedures based on international recommendations (IVM group) [6].

During the study period a total of 13 severe COVID-19 patients receiving immunosuppressant therapy were treated with IVM at 200 μg/kg, single dose. In the IVM group, 5 (38.5%) patients were treated with tocilizumab, 3 (23.1%) with high doses of steroids, 3 (23.1%) with both tocilizumab and steroids, and 2 (15.3%) with tocilizumab, steroids and anakinra. Five patients required admission to an ICU. IVM was administered a median of 12 (IQR 8–18) days after the initiation of symptoms. In the non-IVM group, six (46.2%) patients were treated with tocilizumab and steroids, 2 (15.3%) with anakinra and steroids, 2 (15.3%) with tocilizumab, 2 (15.3%) with high doses of steroids and 1 with siltuximab.

Following hospital protocols at that moment, all patients received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. All patients in the control group and 12 up to the 13 patients in the IVM group were also treated with lopinavir/ritonavir. One patient in the IVM group did not receive lopinavir/ritonavir due to diarrhea. Two patients in the IVM group and one in the control group were also treated with remdesivir and one patient in the IVM group and two in the control group received beta-interferon. Comparison of baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, treatment and outcomes between COVID-19 patients treated with and without IVM is shown in Table 1. Although no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between groups, a higher proportion of patients in the IVM group required admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) (69% vs 38% in the non-IVM group) (Table 1).

--------

I have been criticized for posting retrospective studies, so you will too.

Looks like they're administering too late. It's known that early treatment is better.

It's going to be tough to find any medication to save lives once they're so far into a disease. Especially when a majority if those who perish are elderly with compromised immune systems.

Simple prophylactics such as vitamin D, C, zinc and magnesium would probably be more beneficial than some of these pharmaceuticals, even HCQ, at preventing severe covid 19 disease.




It wasn't a study on prophylactic use, they looked at biomarkers and the ivermectin did not have any effect, those who did not receive the ivermectin actually did better. It's just preliminary evidence suggesting ivermectin likely does not influence the course of the disease at all. The results have a good chance of translating over towards earlier and prophylactic use because they showed zero effect on any relevant biological markers to fighting off COVID. Even without that study (which was small and not all that convincing) I'd still have close to zero faith in the drug.

In-vitro it's easy to saturate a virus with whatever chemical you're looking to study, in humans, it's usually not. The in-vitro level of exposure they used is not attainable in humans, making the research that all of this hype was based upon completely irrelevant.


"The available pharmacokinetic data for ivermectin indicate that at the doses routinely used for the management of parasitic diseases the SARS-CoV-2 inhibitory concentrations are practically not attainable. At present any empiric treatment with ivermectin or its inclusion in therapeutic protocols are not scientifically justifiable. The very consideration of the drug as a broad spectrum antiviral agent is incorrect because it has failed to demonstrate antiviral effects beyond the in vitro level. Pending the paucity of reliable data from controlled studies and the aforementioned pharmacokinetic considerations, the application of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients is to be decisively discouraged."

"The analyzed data show that, at least at the clinically relevant dose ranges of ivermectin, the published in vitro inhibitory concentrations and especially the 5 µmol/L level causing almost total disappearance of viral RNA are virtually not achievable with the heretofore known dosing regimens in humans. The 5 µmol/L concentration is over 50 times higher than the levels attainable after 700 μg/kg [25] and 17 times higher vs. the largest Cmax found in the literature survey (247.8 ng/ml) [12]. Moreover the authors` claim for achieving viral inhibition with a single dose is inappropriate because practically the infected cells have been continuously exposed at concentrations that are virtually unattainable even with excessive dosing of the drug. In other words, the experimental design is based on clinically irrelevant drug levels with inhibitory concentrations whose targeting in a clinical trial seems doubtful at best."

"Ivermectin has been previously shown to exert antiviral activity in vitro against Dengue fever virus (DENV) [28], influenza virus [38], West Nile Virus [26], Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus [27] and heralded as a possible antiviral drug, but so far there has not been any clinical translation of these data. Noteworthy, a clinical trial for the treatment of Dengue fever in Thailand failed to show clinical benefits [11]. In light of the aforementioned pharmacokinetic considerations, this is not surprising given that the published inhibitory concentrations against DENV1-4 ranged within 1.66–2.32 µmol/L [28]."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13102818.2020.1775118


Edited by feevers (12/13/20 09:01 AM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: wolf8312] * 1
    #27086953 - 12/13/20 08:55 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

You referred to us as dubious posters with no medical training.

People were saying things you didn't want to hear, you respond by spouting insults and bullshit claims instead of evidence to support this doctor's hypothesis. That's an incredibly misguided and childish way to debate an issue that you brought to the table.



Quote:

Equally though I could ask you, on what foundation are you basing your assumption that this doctor is a grifting Charlatan?



Never said he was, just said he most likely is because that's what every other miracle drug promoter so far has been doing. I also said he just might not be very skilled at understanding research.



Quote:

I objected to the fact that you (and others) are vindictively attacking this doctors integrity without providing any evidence whatsoever to support such claims.



I'm not attacking anyone, I gave a simple opinion and evidence.


Quote:

I knew well before even posting it there would be those who would immediately seek to attack the doctors credibility employing ad hominem smear tactics with a few logical fallacies (appeal to expert?) thrown in though without presenting any substantial evidence to support what they were saying.



Projection, nice. To anyone who understands how to critically analyze research, the answer I gave was all the evidence needed. More research is needed, the studies now don't support his take on it. If better evidence comes to the table, I'm happy to re-assess.

You responded with ad hom smear tactics, logical fallacies, and zero evidence against what I've posted.


Quote:

:rolleyes:



Sure, your appeal to authority saying the doctor works with covid patients was useful and necessary, but the fact that I also work with covid patients is irrelevant.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Supreme Court rules against medical marijuana Agent Cooper 4,423 12 09/10/12 08:36 PM
by MEEZIE

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
4,218 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 15 queries.