Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (18 Viewers)

[Sailorsaint]

I'm sorry that you can't open it. Is this the case with others here?

works fine for me.

 

[UK SAINTS]

I think that if the question of peer-review matters, it bears finding out who peer reviewed the paper and on what standards.

I totally agree.

The article states that it has been published in American Journal of Therapeutics.

I'm not sure what the criteria is for getting it published there.

 

[St. Widge]

I think that if the question of peer-review matters, it bears finding out who peer reviewed the paper and on what standards.

And, for peer review to really mean anything, it needs to be done by independent third parties selected by the publisher, not people hand selected by the author(s).

 

[Sailorsaint]

I think that if the question of peer-review matters, it bears finding out who peer reviewed the paper and on what standards.

The man said his paper was peer reviewed, case closed! Stop asking questions! lol

 

[superchuck500]

I totally agree.

The article states that it has been published in American Journal of Therapeutics.

I'm not sure what the criteria is for getting it published there.

Don't know much about it, but there are ways to check a publication's reputation. The Resurchify indexing site ranks the journal 13,388 with an impact factor of 1.95.

Contrast with the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, that is ranked 14 with an impact factor of 74.69.

American Journal of Therapeutics - Impact Factor, Overall Ranking, Rating, h-index, Call For Paper, Publisher, ISSN, Scientific Journal Ranking (SJR), Abbreviation, other Important Details | Resurchify

American Journal of Therapeutics is a journal published by Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd.. Check American Journal of Therapeutics Impact Factor, Overall Ranking, Rating, h-index, Call For Papers, Publisher, ISSN, Scientific Journal Ranking (SJR), Abbreviation, Acceptance Rate, Review...

www.resurchify.com

New England Journal of Medicine - Impact Factor, Overall Ranking, Rating, h-index, Call For Paper, Publisher, ISSN, Scientific Journal Ranking (SJR), Abbreviation, other Important Details | Resurchify

New England Journal of Medicine is a journal published by Massachussetts Medical Society. Check New England Journal of Medicine Impact Factor, Overall Ranking, Rating, h-index, Call For Papers, Publisher, ISSN, Scientific Journal Ranking (SJR), Abbreviation, Acceptance Rate, Review Speed, Scope...

www.resurchify.com

 

[St. Widge]

The man said his paper was peer reviewed, case closed! Stop asking questions! lol

I found a link for the published article. I don't see any indication in the article that it has been peer reviewed, or by who, but I could be missing it.

https://journals.lww.com/americanth...mectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

 

[sammymvpknight]

I appreciate your response (as well as SailorSaint's).

I'll do some more reseach in Dr. Marik (and the organization). I'm not exactly sure what "peer-reviewed" entails, but why/why not should not that give more credibility? If it were peer-reviews (and rejected) then that I could understand, but I didn't not find that (yet). I also am a little less-trusting of big Pharma, I guess, because I DO think that monetary gain is nearly always an incentive. I'm not willing to jump at any conspiracy, but try not to just readily dismiss them, either.
Ivermectin is apparently very inexpensive, so is there an incentive for other drug makers to try and dismiss?

And I don't think (certainly hope!) that most partakers are using it in the same dosage as that for a horse. On the other hand, it boggles my mind the fast-food restaurant have to put "May be hot" on their coffee cups.

I'm a Saints fan. I run a study to show that the Saints are the best team. I then get my friends, who are also Saints fans, to review the legitimacy of my claim. They find through peer review that my opinion was valid.

Not saying that is what happened in this particular case, but if you have one biased group of individuals that are very invested in their findings showing what they want to find, then it brings up questions. I perform medical research for a living. Truth be told...if I really wanted to, I can get the stats to show what I want them to show. There is lots that goes into integrity, and whether the journal is trustworthy. Truth be told, not all journals are created equal...there are some that are actually quite predatory, and others that are biased.

If I can get access to your article, I'll look at it. I'll tell you it's limitations and concerns for bias. There is no perfect article, so it shouldn't be very difficult.

 

[UK SAINTS]

I'm a Saints fan. I run a study to show that the Saints are the best team. I then get my friends, who are also Saints fans, to review the legitimacy of my claim. They find through peer review that my opinion was valid.

Not saying that is what happened in this particular case, but if you have one biased group of individuals that are very invested in their findings showing what they want to find, then it brings up questions. I perform medical research for a living. Truth be told...if I really wanted to, I can get the stats to show what I want them to show. There is lots that goes into integrity, and whether the journal is trustworthy. Truth be told, not all journals are created equal...there are some that are actually quite predatory, and others that are biased.

If I can get access to your article, I'll look at it. I'll tell you it's limitations and concerns for bias. There is no perfect article, so it shouldn't be very difficult.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your insight.

 

[superchuck500]

I perform medical research for a living. Truth be told...if I really wanted to, I can get the stats to show what I want them to show. There is lots that goes into integrity, and whether the journal is trustworthy. Truth be told, not all journals are created equal...there are some that are actually quite predatory, and others that are biased.

I think this is particularly applicable in a situation like we have in Covid where the reality is that most people overcome it. This gets back to my 'gummy bear' example, but if most people overcome the infection anyway, it's hard to evaluate my claim that my patients that I treated with gummy bears were successful - so, therefore, everyone should take gummy bears to treat Covid.

The control measures are really, really important, and that's where quality peer-review comes in. But, like you said, if you stack the deck in peer-review, it becomes meaningless for purposes of grounding the research as reliable.

 

[Taurus]

Also, and this is very important:

By the time Ivermectin is even in the conversation, you've got a 10-30% chance for Long Covid.
Contrast that with the vaccine which has a great chance of preventing infection at all...so 0% chance of Long Covid.

Even if Ivermectin was a magic wand that instantly cleared up your case of C-19 it would still be vastly inferior to the vaccine.

 

[DaveXA]

I appreciate your response (as well as SailorSaint's).

I'll do some more reseach in Dr. Marik (and the organization). I'm not exactly sure what "peer-reviewed" entails, but why/why not should not that give more credibility? If it were peer-reviews (and rejected) then that I could understand, but I didn't not find that (yet). I also am a little less-trusting of big Pharma, I guess, because I DO think that monetary gain is nearly always an incentive. I'm not willing to jump at any conspiracy, but try not to just readily dismiss them, either.
Ivermectin is apparently very inexpensive, so is there an incentive for other drug makers to try and dismiss?

And I don't think (certainly hope!) that most partakers are using it in the same dosage as that for a horse. On the other hand, it boggles my mind the fast-food restaurant have to put "May be hot" on their coffee cups.

If you're a little less trusting of big pharma, then you most certainly should be less trusting of Ivermectin, which is made by Merck, which is...big pharma, yeah.

Edit: Fwiw, this is tongue in cheek, sorta. I think the discussion of what is valid peer review and whether the info post qualifies is worth confirming or debunking, but if you're starting with the bias that big pharma is untrustworthy, then it stands to reason that same thought should apply with Ivermectin.

What's far more clear is that the vaccines out there that have been approved by the FDA are very effective and provide a good measure of protection from Covid.

 

[UK SAINTS]

If you're a little less trusting of big pharma, then you most certainly should be less trusting of Ivermectin, which is made by Merck, which is...big pharma, yeah.

You meant their statement that Ivermectin WON'T work against Covid?
jk

 

[DaveXA]

You meant their statement that Ivermectin WON'T work against Covid?
jk

Lol. Good one.

And as Chuck pointed out, if Merck thought there was a chance the drug would be effective vs Covid, they'd be all over that in a heartbeat.

 

[sammymvpknight]

I'm going to have to do this in chunks as time allows.

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy... : American Journal of Therapeutics

ed within clinical trials. Areas of Uncertainty: The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the...

journals.lww.com

Introduction:

• Paragraph 1. Outlines background...COVID 19 causing morbidity/mortality with worsening in some regions. Also briefly mentions problem.
  • No problems here
• Paragraph 2. Outlines problem...no good treatment for non-hospitalized patients. Steroids may have some efficacy demonstrated in small trials. Point out that remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon, convalescent plasma, and monoclonal antibody therapy are ineffective for hospitalized patients. Also mentions that there are no effective treatments that prevent disease progression.
  • OK...some I'm going to take some issue with the last statement. Monoclonal antibodies have not been demonstrated to help with hospitalized patients. However, there is at least some evidence that it may be helpful in prevention of disease progression. It is based on small studies, but it is approved for emergency use for that specific indication. Now whether or not you think that the sample size is adequate is a different topic, but to omit that from their paper paints the picture that the authors are trying their best to say that there are NO OPTIONS to strength the endorsement of their findings, which I think presents bias.
• Paragraph 3. Reviews Ivermectin..."a widely used antiparasitic medicine with known antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, have been showing benefits in multiple important clinical and virologic outcomes, including mortality"
  • I don't believe that this is a consensus, and therefore the authors should have cited references. The fact that they did not cite references suggests that they implying that this is common knowledge. It is misleading and demonstrates bias.

History of Ivermectin

• Point 1. This is the part of their paper that they attempt to sell you on the greatness of the medicine before they get to the purpose of the study which is to discuss their findings on the topic of COVID-19. "Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, it soon made historic impacts in human health, improving the nutrition, general health, and well-being of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat onchocerciasis (river blindness) in humans in 1988."
  • It was usually used to treat river blindness because that was caused by a parasite...which is very reasonable as a antiparasitic agent. But essentially calling it a wellness medicine...bias and baseless...the medication does not have that strong of a reputation to make those claims...and essentially none do.
• Point 2. Lots of things to comment on this section so I'll break it down by each of their claims. "It proved ideal in many ways, given that it was highly effective, broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated, and could be easily administered."
  • I'd actually recommend reading the title of the reference they cited here..."Ivermectin,‘wonder drug’ from Japan". The term "wonder drug" in the title of an article throws up a huge red flag. It's not a broad-spectrum medication, it's an antiparasitic medication. Safety is relative, and it is known to have notable side effects, including some that have resulted in people recently being hospitalized for because of misuse.
• Point 3. They actually throw in a true statement. "Although it was used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, it was most known as the essential mainstay of 2 global disease elimination campaigns that has nearly eliminated the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases."
  • The reason why ivermectin may be helpful in this situation is because elephantiasis (which they are alluding to) is caused by a parasitic infection. Why don't they just say elephantiasis/filariasis? The reason is because they want the audience to imply that it is more broadly used for disfiguring conditions...not just those caused by parasitic diseases.
  • Edit...then end up saying filariasis later in the paragraph, why you don't mention it while making the claim that it is helpful in disfiguring conditions, again is likely due to bias.
• Point 4. "The unprecedented partnership between Merck & Co. Inc, and the Kitasato Institute combined with the aid of international health care organizations has been recognized by many experts as one of the greatest medical accomplishments of the 20th century. "
  • Merck has already come out and admonished use of the medication for reasons other than parasitic infections. Why would a company with so much gain do that? One...liability, and two...perhaps they have more ethics than the authors of the paper, which is troubling.
• Point 5. "...its discoverers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 and the reason for its inclusion on the World Health Organization's (WHO) “List of Essential Medicines.” Furthermore, it has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found."
  • True...the discovers won the Nobel peace prize...because of the impact it had as an antiparasitic. That's it. Not because it's ability to treat "several other human diseases". Again to support that claim they cite the article with the title of "Ivermectin,‘wonder drug’ from Japan".

 

[Saint_Ward]

Please constructively criticize this article: (I am not trying to push Ivermectin or convince anyone not to get a vaccine). I am just trying to further educate myself.

Trust The Science: The Evidence For Ivermectin And COVID-19

Source: Nworeport Latest peer-reviewed research: Immediate global ivermectin use will end COVID-19 pandemic Peer-Reviewed Publication FRONTLINE COVID-19 CRITICAL CARE ALLIANCE (FLCCC ALLIANCE) WASH…

nworeport.me

“Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” said Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, founding member of the FLCCC and Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. “We can no longer rely on many of the larger health authorities to make an honest examination of the medical and scientific evidence. So, we are calling on regional public health authorities and medical professionals around the world to demand that ivermectin be included in their standard of care right away so we can end this pandemic once and for all.”

The published research can be found in the latest edition of the American Journal of Therapeutics: Journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics

JOURNAL: American Journal of Therapeutics

The article is terrible.

This is the actual link to the research, which was a meta analysis.

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy... : American Journal of Therapeutics

ed within clinical trials. Areas of Uncertainty: The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the...

journals.lww.com

There may be an argument that it helps in third world countries that potentially have parasites as a comorbidity.

Edit: this is not a control at all....

Data that further illuminates the potential protective role of ivermectin against COVID-19 come from a study of nursing home residents in France which reported that in a facility that suffered a scabies outbreak where all 69 residents and 52 staff were treated with ivermectin,41 they found that during the period surrounding this event, 7 of the 69 residents fell ill with COVID-19 (10.1%). In this group with an average age of 90 years, only one resident required oxygen support and no resident died. In a matched control group of residents from surrounding facilities, they found 22.6% of residents fell ill and 4.9% died.

EDIT 2: I want to say why this isn't a control. But also to clarify, I don't do medical research. I have done materials related research, and have read a bunch.

What counts as a resident from a "surrounding facility". How was that control group similar, or different? No useful information is provided about the control. Only the case group. What's the vaccination levels of each place? Same neighborhood? Same rules for entry? Same air flow type? square footage of the facility?


Then, also note that the control group is only talked about in percentages, not total numbers too. So, is 22.6% of residents who fell ill, similar to the scabies group? i.e. 22.6% of 69 residents (7 out of the 69)? Or a much smaller amount? 5 out of 22 would be 22.7%... Not exact, but close.