[Gambas-user] Reduced activity

[Jussi Lahtinen]

Well, the US National Institute of Health disagrees with the Robert Koch
> Institut. Perhaps you could have done a bit more research.
>

No they don't, that was just a hoax spread on facebook/twitter/youtube/etc.
Here is their website:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
Check what they actually say.



> Merck also put a statement against ivermectin. Hmm, I wonder why.
>

It is for the reasons I gave you. *Merck sells ivermectin.*



> I find it interesting that you, in your expert opinion, can conclusively
> state that ivermectin and doxycycline do not explain it
> when other experts indicate a different possibility.


No they don't. You just cherry pick hoaxes and fringe "experts" to support
your view. We already know that *IF* ivermectin works, it's effect is too
small to explain the Indian numbers.
Also, if it works, why doesn't it work in poor European countries? Why are
the numbers there totally different?
Didn't you read what I wrote?


"Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin
> in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19"
> [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/]:
>
> "Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A
> Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential
> Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines"
> [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/]:
>

A lot of redundancy here. Those two, meta-analysis and systematic review,
already contain the studies you linked. And they both also use the same
studies
in their conclusion. More importantly they are the same studies included in
the* Cochrane review.*



> "Ivermectin, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-parasitic
> agent, was found to inhibit severe acute respiratory
> syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in vitro.


This is exactly as I said. The problem is in the needed *in vivo*
concentration. Did you read what I wrote to you?



> [https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/]:
>

Non-scientific source. And again referring to what you already linked.



> "Doxycycline as a potential partner of COVID-19 therapies"
> [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7298522/]:
>

Read it. It's an old paper that *recommends studying* hydroxycholoroquine
(doesn't work) and doxycycline in treatment of COVID.
It does *not* even try to offer evidence that they work, only rationale.
Remember what happened to the hydroxycholoroquine? At first it "seemed" it
works, but then nothing.



> "Doxycycline treatment of high-risk COVID-19-positive patients with
> comorbid pulmonary disease"
> [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32873175/]:
>

Study of *four* patients and one of them was on antibiotics anyway. So this
is a case where we could have used doxycycline anyway. Remeber what I
wrote? Doxycycline is something *we do use*, when appropriate (well also
ivermectin, but only for killing parasites).
Also no controls whatsoever. Typical very low quality evidence study. You
can make water appear to work with a design like that.

See the Cochrane review. They are experts on high quality reviews.


Jussi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gambas-basic.org/pipermail/user/attachments/20211204/37818376/attachment.htm>