BBC: China pneumonia outbreak: COVID-19 Global Pandemic

[Elessar78]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I mean NIH published one study just a few weeks ago. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

 

 

the end of the abstract:

 

 

but no, let’s not study it because a bunch of people that don’t know a god damned thing about any of it, have decided it’s a political football 🙄
 

 

72 people in trial... 5-day course...

 

~25 patients got IVM saw "virological clearance" in 9.7 days vs 12.7 days in placebo group

~25 patients got IVM + doxycline saw virological clearance in 11.5 days

 

you really gonna roll the dice because 25 people in BANGLADESH got better 3 days sooner? Also the study says for "mild cases" of C19.

[tshile]

Just now, Elessar78 said:

 

you really gonna roll the dice because 25 people in BANGLADESH got better 3 days sooner? Also the study says for "mild cases" of C19.

What dice am I rolling?

 

the one that says it’s worth studying? Yeah. I’ll roll that one. 
 

and yeah I’m aware of what was said in the part I specially quoted. 

[bearrock]

We need to not confuse experts conducting controlled studies to find out the potential benefits of ivermectin vs morons who latch onto the latest cure du jour all in an attempt to get one up on the libtards. 

 

The experts in charge determined this worthy of studying.  Short of finding out that it is somehow causing mind blowing damage to NIH funding for other studies, I'm happy to sit on the sidelines and let the experts do their job.

[Mr. Sinister]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I’m sure the people arguing about time and resources know what projects people were pulled off of to study this 🙄

 

having an issue checking your political biases at the door, for the sake of critical thinking, isn’t exclusively a Republican problem. 

 

This directed at me?

[Mr. Sinister]

At any rate, I take back what I said about it being a waste, after reading several articles related to the study. 

 

We've certainly done dumber things, at the very least

[steve09ru]

2 hours ago, Elessar78 said:

you really gonna roll the dice because 25 people in BANGLADESH got better 3 days sooner? Also the study says for "mild cases" of C19.

if the additional studies end up showing treatment works in the mild stages then it has the potential to limit the severe cases - treating mild cases = less chance of severe cases.

Edited January 13, 2022 by steve09ru

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

I mean NIH published one study just a few weeks ago. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

 

 

the end of the abstract:

 

 

but no, let’s not study it because a bunch of people that don’t know a god damned thing about any of it, have decided it’s a political football 🙄
 

 

 

Just to be clear, the NIH didn't publish the study.  The study is appearing on a NIH page (PubMed) because Pubmed catalogs much of the peer reviewed biological literature.  The people that did the study all work in Bangladesh or Singapore.  Anything published in most biologically related journals will appear in PubMed, but the work done is not really associated with the NIH at all.

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Just to be clear, the NIH didn't publish the study

Also, I don’t know if study is the right word either. It’s 75 people. Seems exploratory in a formal format more than what I usually think the word “study” carries with it

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, steve09ru said:

if the additional studies end up showing treatment works in the mild stages then it has the potential to limit the severe cases - treating mild cases = less chance of severe cases.

 

I'm wondering if the only benefit is 3 days less of mild COVID symptoms...if so, that won't really translate to less chance of severe cases.

 

Put another way, the placebo group didn't get worse, they just experienced their mild symptoms 3 days longer...so maybe treating mild cases does not mean less chance of severe cases...IVM may not have stopped COVID from developing further than it would have without IVM treatment.

[tshile]

I don’t think anyone should put any more into that than “it’s worth looking into”

 

Now that we have these pills, it’s gonna be a high bar to reach to get to the point ivermectin is legitimately a preferred option of some sort. 
 

and honestly I randomly found that. My understanding was that if it had any real legitimate use (meaning - there aren’t any better options, cause my understanding is everything else is preferred (and as of right now everything else is evidence-based)) it was in the cases where death was around the corner and all other options had been exhausted. Something to do with how it helps the lungs, which is the primary cause of death with covid (there are others but the part that attacks the lungs is the majority of deaths I believe)

 

the point is it isn’t crazy for reputable people to study it. I don’t think you can really go any further with it at the moment. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by tshile

[Larry]

7 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

It’s part of what the NIH does though…. Studies. It’s completely in their wheelhouse. The government wastes all kinds of time and money, this is probably one of the better wastes of time and money. 

 

 

Right. 
 

They should study every single medication, supplement, and chemical compound. Against every possible disease. 
 

Just to please a political party which has made it an article of religious faith to oppose every single known, proven effective tool against a current epidemic. By lying their ass off. 

[steve09ru]

28 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I'm wondering if the only benefit is 3 days less of mild COVID symptoms...if so, that won't really translate to less chance of severe cases.

 

Put another way, the placebo group didn't get worse, they just experienced their mild symptoms 3 days longer...so maybe treating mild cases does not mean less chance of severe cases...IVM may not have stopped COVID from developing further than it would have without IVM treatment.

3 days is great improvement when we're factoring in all of the economics of it.  if you let a viral infection go untreated, it does lead to an increased chance of infection spreading elsewhere (ie. lungs).

 

also, in regards to the placebo group, that could show that those early treatments kept those symptoms to developing to be more severe.  i'm looking at possibilities more so from an early treatment standpoint because the fact is, covid will be around for the future - just a matter of when it becomes more like the common flu.  and i think the early testing/studies on treatment is needed to understand how to handle for the future.

Edited January 13, 2022 by steve09ru

[Califan007 The Constipated]

43 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

3 days is great improvement when we're factoring in all of the economics of it.  if you let a viral infection go untreated, it does lead to an increased chance of infection spreading elsewhere (ie. lungs).

 

also, in regards to the placebo group, that could show that those early treatments kept those symptoms to developing to be more severe.  i'm looking at possibilities more so from an early treatment standpoint because the fact is, covid will be around for the future - just a matter of when it becomes more like the common flu.  and i think the early testing/studies on treatment is needed to understand how to handle for the future.

 

1) It's definitely an improvement economically, but I was responding to IVM keeping those mild cases from getting worse...if I'm understanding what little I read of the study nothing really indicates it does or would.

 

2) Wouldn't the placebo group show that their mild COVID did not develop further even without any IVM treatments?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

Right. 
 

They should study every single medication, supplement, and chemical compound. Against every possible disease. 

 

Do you think the NIH is that stupid though?

Edited January 13, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Larry]

34 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Do you think the NIH is that stupid though?

 

No.  they are studying Ivermectin based solely on scientific evidence.  And not in response to any political liars loudly announcing that the government is refusing to even look at all of the mountains of evidence, because they're all in the pockets of Big Tech.  

[steve09ru]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

1) It's definitely an improvement economically, but I was responding to IVM keeping those mild cases from getting worse...if I'm understanding what little I read of the study nothing really indicates it does or would.

 

2) Wouldn't the placebo group show that their mild COVID did not develop further even without any IVM treatments?

Possibly so and why I think we need to study it more

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

[Dan T.]

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

One bad word in the tweet....and one idiot suffering the consequences of their stupidity.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

What she said after finding out she tested for COVID:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Califan007

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

It's Bill Burr so, yeah, NSFW language lol...

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Elessar78]

5 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

I say F it. Let them have an extended winter break. Extend into the summer if you have to. Remote learning is poorly done. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

Ordering begins January 19.

 

 

 

[Ball Security]

Some subtle good news.

 

https://apnews.com/article/omicron-wave-britain-us-160ded1ce8d82075057630e11b610358

 

New York is starting to see a decrease.  Locally, Fairfax county may be on the verge of a decrease.  Friday had less cases than Thursday which had less cases than Wednesday.  And this Friday had less cases than the previous Friday.  Hopeful.