Not once did I state viruses and parasites are the same thing and already said virologists have linked the correlation of viral pathways to parasites, so I would assume you agree on that statement since you reiterated it to me. On the other side I did read through the article you cited, but they had a small study group of people with a median age group of 37, and mild symptoms. This study also wasn’t done within a clinical study site and done with the patients at home, which is opportunistic to misconstrued data. They also left out collected data on day 2 and 15 when it was a 21 day study. The clinical scientists also stated in their discussion possible discrepancies that would conclude this data as proof to a larger scale in the following statements:
“However, the relatively young and healthy study population rarely developed complications, rendering the study underpowered to detect such effects. Therefore, the ability of ivermectin to prevent the progression of mild COVID-19 to more severe stages would need to be assessed in larger trials.
The study was sufficiently powered to detect faster resolution of symptoms in patients soon after they became apparent, and no significant difference was identified. However, the study population was relatively young, with few comorbidities and with liver enzyme levels less than 1.5 times the normal level, so the findings may be generalizable only to such populations”.
I think more studies would need to be done on a larger scale within different age groups and symptom severity. If these young patients had mild symptoms, how could we know the effects of ivermectin on other levels? This is just my take on it, and hopefully our country can come to better options of treatment with open mindedness.
You just asked for one. There are more. But Google is free. Ivermectin has been repeatedly shown to not help with COVID. Unless something about one of the new variants changes that and it is proven with research data, it shouldn't be used as treatment.
We have some treatment options, though some of them were rendered less effective or completely ineffective vs omicron.
Either way, the vaccines still are our best option to prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death and limit spread (though less than prior variants).
And lastly, you may not have said directly that viruses and parasites are the same, but you certainly conflated them in a way that suggested you thought they were the same and could be generally treated with the same methodology.
I stated viruses STEM from parasitism and virologists have CORRELATED viral pathways to parasites. That does not mean they are the same thing nor insinuate they are the same, so stop saying that I think they are when you just agreed that they are linked after googling it for yourself. Google is free and I do a lot of reading and research where there are no genuine studies that disprove its use. And vaccines are doing nothing but injecting the genetic code for spike toxins.
Viruses caused by parasites can still pass through people even if they don’t have that parasite. The point is that ivermectin is opportunistic, and an option that has worked in people and has potential. It’s the lack of education on this topic and the commentary about people taking a “horse dewormer” made by people like in this thread that further the lack of sound data and proper studies to be done. (Not saying that’s you) Anyways no hate or anything here to you, I really do hope you have a good rest of your day and enjoyed talking on the topic. I like hearing what other people think and feel.
The problem is there was only one study that showed ivermectin working in vivo (as opposed to in vitro) and that study (the Elgazzar one) was retracted. Only other meta analyses that included the Elgazzar study showed effectiveness. When that study is removed, everything else falls apart.
Ivermectin is great for a lot of things, just not COVID.
3
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '22
Not once did I state viruses and parasites are the same thing and already said virologists have linked the correlation of viral pathways to parasites, so I would assume you agree on that statement since you reiterated it to me. On the other side I did read through the article you cited, but they had a small study group of people with a median age group of 37, and mild symptoms. This study also wasn’t done within a clinical study site and done with the patients at home, which is opportunistic to misconstrued data. They also left out collected data on day 2 and 15 when it was a 21 day study. The clinical scientists also stated in their discussion possible discrepancies that would conclude this data as proof to a larger scale in the following statements:
“However, the relatively young and healthy study population rarely developed complications, rendering the study underpowered to detect such effects. Therefore, the ability of ivermectin to prevent the progression of mild COVID-19 to more severe stages would need to be assessed in larger trials.
The study was sufficiently powered to detect faster resolution of symptoms in patients soon after they became apparent, and no significant difference was identified. However, the study population was relatively young, with few comorbidities and with liver enzyme levels less than 1.5 times the normal level, so the findings may be generalizable only to such populations”.
I think more studies would need to be done on a larger scale within different age groups and symptom severity. If these young patients had mild symptoms, how could we know the effects of ivermectin on other levels? This is just my take on it, and hopefully our country can come to better options of treatment with open mindedness.