- Joined
- 2 February 2006
- Posts
- 14,009
- Reactions
- 2,891
How COVID-19 Affects Your Body
By now, everyone knows about COVID-19. But do you know how it can affect your body?
www.webmd.com
Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) outbreak discussion
- Thread starter DB008
- Start date
www.webmd.com
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,092
- Reactions
- 23,697
The media love to put a dramatic twist on everything, the good thing is, if this peaks very quickly, it will get relegated from the front pages just as quickly.
Had your 3rd shot yet Homer?
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,626
- Reactions
- 12,746
interesting that in the past it is the government's role is to keep people calm and reduce panic over any situation including pandemics.
Now it has been to increase fear and panic.
Why?
I think *some of us do know the answer to that.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,092
- Reactions
- 23,697
Nope, are they making you guys have one yet?
I've heard it is essential services first, the MIL in Rockingham wants one, but earliest is late Jan at her doctors.
Tomorrow.
When I saw the NSW cases start to climb in the first couple of weeks last December and then read ATAGI had recommended five months instead of six, I got online and made the appointment. Five months and one day after second dose of AZ.
- Joined
- 17 August 2006
- Posts
- 7,755
- Reactions
- 8,352
There are certainly some questions I'd like answers to!
I hesitantly regurgitate the Ivermectin debate/misinformation.
I am not in a position to declare definitively that it works, but there are a lot of highly qualified medical people that seem to think it has merit.
The Meta Analysis below is a detailed and well presented study from the American Journal of Therapeutics which shows excellent results
My question is, if this study is even remotely accurate, it indicates we should at least be utilizing Ivermectin as part of an early treatment protocol. Its extremely safe and appears to cut all case mortality exponentially.
Why then has our TGA basically banned it for treatment of Covid in Australia. This action forces people who have read research which says it is possibly saving lives, to take additional risks of sourcing it from overseas, and/or use equine versions of the drug.
And there original reason for banning it was: Social media is leading people to use it inappropriately ....doh! So take away a regulated/controlled prescription availability from between a patient and their Doctor, and force the patient to source it from wherever?!
Can't quite follow that logic
Full Meta Analysis Ivermectin
(Small excerpt)
That's interesting @barney. Could be some conflict of interest in the meta-study plus there are some doubts about its quality to a degree which casts doubts on its finding.
Study reviewed trials
The peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Therapeutics was published June 17 and led by Andrew Bryant, a research associate in gastroenterology at the Population Health Sciences Institute of Newcastle University.
The researchers said they analyzed results from studies and looked at mortality rates among people who were given ivermectin versus people who weren’t. The researchers concluded:
"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
They added: "Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and" prevention.
Study’s underpinnings
Experts said the trials that the study relies on are not high quality.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said the study is a meta-analysis (an analysis of other analyses) "whose strength is dependent on the underlying studies that comprise it."
"In general, most of the ivermectin studies that purport to show a positive benefit are of low quality and have potential sources of bias," which is why the drug is not recommended by the National Institutes of Health or the Infectious Diseases Society of America, he said. "It is only with rigorously designed randomized control trials that any true benefit can be discovered."
Assuming the meta-analysis is correct, ivermectin "would seem to merit further study," said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University Medical Center.
Some drugs initially seem promising, but don’t hold up in more rigorous clinical testing, Morse said. For instance, some insisted that hydroxychloroquine was "a cure," but there hasn’t been strong supporting data for it, he said.
"That can be a real problem, and raise unrealistic expectations for a drug that might be very promising or useful, but not a homerun," Morse said.
Some of the studies analyzed in the ivermectin meta-analysis were not peer reviewed, said Dr. David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, who has criticized the June study.
"Pooling data from a large number of small, low-quality clinical trials does not magically create one large, high-quality clinical trial," wrote Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a website that evaluates medical claims.
He added: "The few existing higher quality clinical trials testing ivermectin against the disease uniformly have failed to find a positive result. It’s only the smaller, lower-quality trials that have been positive. This is a good indication that the drug probably doesn’t work."
Gorski also pointed out that the researchers, despite claiming to have no conflicts of interest, are affiliated with BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) Group.
BIRD describes itself as "campaigning for the safe medicine ivermectin to be approved to prevent and cure COVID-19 around the world."
Tess Lawrie, who is one of the study’s co-authors and a BIRD leader, told PolitiFact in an email that her study "shows that large reductions in deaths from COVID are probable when ivermectin is used, especially when employed as early treatment."
Another meta-analysis, published June 28, arrived at an opposite conclusion.
That study was led by a University of Connecticut researcher and appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, a publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. It found that in comparison to standard of care or placebo, ivermectin "did not reduce all-cause mortality." The study concluded saying that the drug "is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients."
BIRD reacted by calling on the journal to take down the meta-analysis or issue a warning about its "incorrect information.""
www.politifact.com
Study reviewed trials
The peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Therapeutics was published June 17 and led by Andrew Bryant, a research associate in gastroenterology at the Population Health Sciences Institute of Newcastle University.
The researchers said they analyzed results from studies and looked at mortality rates among people who were given ivermectin versus people who weren’t. The researchers concluded:
"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
They added: "Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and" prevention.
Study’s underpinnings
Experts said the trials that the study relies on are not high quality.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said the study is a meta-analysis (an analysis of other analyses) "whose strength is dependent on the underlying studies that comprise it."
"In general, most of the ivermectin studies that purport to show a positive benefit are of low quality and have potential sources of bias," which is why the drug is not recommended by the National Institutes of Health or the Infectious Diseases Society of America, he said. "It is only with rigorously designed randomized control trials that any true benefit can be discovered."
Assuming the meta-analysis is correct, ivermectin "would seem to merit further study," said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University Medical Center.
Some drugs initially seem promising, but don’t hold up in more rigorous clinical testing, Morse said. For instance, some insisted that hydroxychloroquine was "a cure," but there hasn’t been strong supporting data for it, he said.
"That can be a real problem, and raise unrealistic expectations for a drug that might be very promising or useful, but not a homerun," Morse said.
Some of the studies analyzed in the ivermectin meta-analysis were not peer reviewed, said Dr. David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, who has criticized the June study.
"Pooling data from a large number of small, low-quality clinical trials does not magically create one large, high-quality clinical trial," wrote Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a website that evaluates medical claims.
He added: "The few existing higher quality clinical trials testing ivermectin against the disease uniformly have failed to find a positive result. It’s only the smaller, lower-quality trials that have been positive. This is a good indication that the drug probably doesn’t work."
Gorski also pointed out that the researchers, despite claiming to have no conflicts of interest, are affiliated with BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) Group.
BIRD describes itself as "campaigning for the safe medicine ivermectin to be approved to prevent and cure COVID-19 around the world."
Tess Lawrie, who is one of the study’s co-authors and a BIRD leader, told PolitiFact in an email that her study "shows that large reductions in deaths from COVID are probable when ivermectin is used, especially when employed as early treatment."
Another meta-analysis, published June 28, arrived at an opposite conclusion.
That study was led by a University of Connecticut researcher and appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, a publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. It found that in comparison to standard of care or placebo, ivermectin "did not reduce all-cause mortality." The study concluded saying that the drug "is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients."
BIRD reacted by calling on the journal to take down the meta-analysis or issue a warning about its "incorrect information.""
Assessing a pro-ivermectin group study on the drug vs COVID
Is the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin a "cure" for COVID-19? We’ve rated False claims such as "mountains of data" show i
www.politifact.com
Dunno I quit early in December but my brother was recently topped up with fizzer after 2 AZ shots.
Parents are booked in this week
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,438
You are still barking at the wrong tree.There are certainly some questions I'd like answers to!
I hesitantly regurgitate the Ivermectin debate/misinformation.
I am not in a position to declare definitively that it works, but there are a lot of highly qualified medical people that seem to think it has merit.
The Meta Analysis below is a detailed and well presented study from the American Journal of Therapeutics which shows excellent results
My question is, if this study is even remotely accurate, it indicates we should at least be utilizing Ivermectin as part of an early treatment protocol. Its extremely safe and appears to cut all case mortality exponentially.
Why then has our TGA basically banned it for treatment of Covid in Australia. This action forces people who have read research which says it is possibly saving lives, to take additional risks of sourcing it from overseas, and/or use equine versions of the drug.
And there original reason for banning it was: Social media is leading people to use it inappropriately ....doh! So take away a regulated/controlled prescription availability from between a patient and their Doctor, and force the patient to source it from wherever?!
Can't quite follow that logic
View attachment 135124
Full Meta Analysis Ivermectin
(Small excerpt)
View attachment 135125
If it was so good then dozens of nations would have had RCTs in place to confirm it worked as you say.
Instead we have very flimsy evidence and not many takers to get the kudos for proving your wonder drug worked miracles.
The conspiracy theorists think Ivermectin is not been approved because its plays into the hands of big pharma to get more expensive drugs in place. You only buy that argument if you think most of the world would pay an arm and a leg to treat covid, rather than pennies, and all this while covid is costing tens of billions in medical care around he world.
Rather than relentless postings here, take your case to medical scientists or ATAGI. They might carry more weight than anyone posting here.
- Joined
- 17 August 2006
- Posts
- 7,755
- Reactions
- 8,352
Thanks @Belli for taking the time to have a look at the findings. And the reference to the other "Meta-Analysis"
It's more the fact that the TGA stopped it being used off label which I can't make any sense out of. (Followed the US lead?)
In essence, it seems they are taking away the possibility of testing/trialing/helping any patients, when the drug could have been used in a real world situation with almost zero risk. Potentially a lost opportunity?
@rederob Why I keep "barking is,
It seems to me that the "vaccines" may well not be the holy grail everybody was hoping for (Case numbers certainly indicate that)
I suspect alternative treatments/drugs might end up being more important in the long run.
Lets bypass Ivermectin for the sake of peacefulness .............
What about the "off label" use of the anti-depressant FLUVOXAMINE ??
It seems to be taken a bit more seriously than when first suggested by some crazy Doctors. ?? (woof that's meant to be humorous btw)
It's more the fact that the TGA stopped it being used off label which I can't make any sense out of. (Followed the US lead?)
In essence, it seems they are taking away the possibility of testing/trialing/helping any patients, when the drug could have been used in a real world situation with almost zero risk. Potentially a lost opportunity?
@rederob Why I keep "barking is,
It seems to me that the "vaccines" may well not be the holy grail everybody was hoping for (Case numbers certainly indicate that)
I suspect alternative treatments/drugs might end up being more important in the long run.
Lets bypass Ivermectin for the sake of peacefulness .............
What about the "off label" use of the anti-depressant FLUVOXAMINE ??
It seems to be taken a bit more seriously than when first suggested by some crazy Doctors. ?? (woof
that's meant to be humorous btw)Thanks @Belli for taking the time to have a look at the findings. And the reference to the other "Meta-Analysis"
It's more the fact that the TGA stopped it being used off label which I can't make any sense out of. (Followed the US lead?)
In essence, it seems they are taking away the possibility of testing/trialing/helping any patients, when the drug could have been used in a real world situation with almost zero risk. Potentially a lost opportunity?
@rederob Why I keep "barking is,
It seems to me that the "vaccines" may well not be the holy grail everybody was hoping for (Case numbers certainly indicate that)
I suspect alternative treatments/drugs might end up being more important in the long run.
Lets bypass Ivermectin for the sake of peacefulness .............
What about the "off label" use of the anti-depressant FLUVOXAMINE ??
It seems to be taken a bit more seriously than when first suggested by some crazy Doctors. ?? (woof
The quickest way to stop the IVM conspiracy theory would be to allow its use on a thousand cases.
Yep, you are positive, if you would like to be in a trial for IVM sign here"
Monitor and publish all results here in OZ, soon see
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,438
The data is definitive on vaccine benefits.
Case numbers are somewhat incidental as it's about what happens if you get covid. Unvaccinated your odds of a serious illness are significantly worse than for those vaxxed. Gambling with your health based on personal preference is not what most people do.
@barney I went to the TGA site in the link
New restrictions on prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19
TGA has placed new restrictions on the prescribing of oral ivermectin
The ACMS link. I'm not qualified to debate the members of the committee don't know a thing or three about medicines.
Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling (ACMS)
The Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling advises and makes recommendations regarding how medicines will be made available to the public.
This is the pack India was using on first sign of symptoms.
I've been following off and on with the ivermectin argument and was interested in how some of the poorer countries fared. Interesting commentary from a doctor on the ground:
As far as taking that stack.... no thanks.
I heard a lot of side effects and heavy hair loss was one of them.
I've been following off and on with the ivermectin argument and was interested in how some of the poorer countries fared. Interesting commentary from a doctor on the ground:
As far as taking that stack.... no thanks.
I heard a lot of side effects and heavy hair loss was one of them.
- Joined
- 17 August 2006
- Posts
- 7,755
- Reactions
- 8,352
Yeah Cheers. Appreciate the follow through again.
I had read the TGA site as well.
Doctors/GP's can prescribe it for prescribed conditions but unfortunately not Covid.
Specialists can prescribe it for "unapproved indications" if they think it appropriate.
The process to see a Specialist due to a Covid infection would be difficult unless super crook I assume?
Then they would have to agree to prescribe it of course (how likely? No idea)
Probably too late to be particularly effective according to my research. Assuming the Ivm advocates are correct,
Ivermectin is best used as early as possible (in conjunction with Zinc)
- Joined
- 17 August 2006
- Posts
- 7,755
- Reactions
- 8,352