• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

COVID-19 Stuff Here

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
At least one country is slowly going down the path of voluntary vaccinations:
STOCKHOLM, Jan 27 (Reuters) - Sweden has decided against recommending COVID vaccines for kids aged 5-11, the Health Agency said on Thursday, arguing that the benefits did not outweigh the risks.

"With the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them," Health Agency official Britta Bjorkholm told a news conference.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
If you’re going to continue to spread medical misinformation that has been proven to you time and time again to be as such, then there’s really nothing left but to brand you a liar…
Happy for the weasel word 'misinformation" to be dropped.
Ultimately your assertion that I'm a liar will be tested by empirical evidence that is not censored.
In the meantime, I'll stay with the point of view put forward by Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr Robert Malone that the re-purposing of safe drugs is important in reducing the impact of covid, and that vaccines should not be mandatory.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Happy for the weasel word 'misinformation" to be dropped.
Ultimately your assertion that I'm a liar will be tested by empirical evidence that is not censored.
In the meantime, I'll stay with the point of view put forward by Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr Robert Malone that the re-purposing of safe drugs is important in reducing the impact of covid, and that vaccines should not be mandatory.

medical misinformation
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
References please.
Dr. Peter McCullough
Dr Robert Malone
Professor Thomas Borody
El Salvador issues medical kits including Ivermectin.
Ivermectin for Prevention and treatment of COVID-19 Infection: a systematic review, meta analysis, and trial sequential analysis. American Journal of Therapeutics. (Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin)
"Indonesia's food and drug agency has authorised ivermectin for emergency use against Covid-19" (Straits Times)
Observational study on 255 mechanically ventilated covid patients at the beginning of the USA pandemic - Causal modeling establishes that weight-adjusted HCQ and AZM therapy improves survival by over 100%

The arguments for and against the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are many and varied.
Therefore doctors and their patients must be allowed to make their own decisions, not one government rule for all.

 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^ problem is that many of the arguments for are false:

"The hype around ivermectin - based on the strength of belief in the research - has driven large numbers of people around the world to use it.

"Campaigners for the drug point to a number of scientific studies and often claim this evidence is being ignored or covered up. But a review by a group of independent scientists has cast serious doubt on that body of research.

"The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

"Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".

"Major problems included:
  • The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people
  • Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random
  • Numbers unlikely to occur naturally
  • Percentages calculated incorrectly
  • Local health bodies unaware of the studies"

Also, didn't the company that makes Ivermectin put out a statement that people shouldn't use it to treat Covid?
 
Last edited:

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Happy for the weasel word 'misinformation" to be dropped.
Ultimately your assertion that I'm a liar will be tested by empirical evidence that is not censored.
In the meantime, I'll stay with the point of view put forward by Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr Robert Malone that the re-purposing of safe drugs is important in reducing the impact of covid, and that vaccines should not be mandatory.

The problem here is that "safe drug" implies that they have considerable consensus of support from the drug testing and review world.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
This is the statement from Merck, the makers of ivermectin, wrt its use as a Covid treatment:


TLDR:
  • No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
  • No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
  • A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
Still TLDR?

* ivermectin kills parasites
* Covid isn't a parasite
 
Last edited:

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
This is the statement from Merck, the makers of ivermectin, wrt its use as a Covid treatment:


TLDR:
  • No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
  • No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
  • A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
Still TLDR?

* ivermectin kills parasites
* Covid isn't a parasite
Here's a meta analysis of 76 studies of Ivermectin for covid-19. It is not anti-vaxx. The paper highlights all the positives and negatives of the use of Ivermectin.
e.g.
* "Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance"
* "No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases mortality, morbidity, collateral damage, and endemic risk."

Surely people, in consultation with their doctors, can do their own research and make their own decisions. Banning Ivermectin for covid use isn't the democratic way..
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Surely people, in consultation with their doctors YouTube conspiracy theorists, Craig Kelly, and pseudo-scientific blogs, can do their own research and make their own decisions. Banning Ivermectin for covid use isn't the democratic way..

Those damn doctors, with their stupid medical degrees, not allowing us to treat the spicy cough with our de-worming brand of choice…
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Here's a meta analysis of 76 studies of Ivermectin for covid-19. It is not anti-vaxx. The paper highlights all the positives and negatives of the use of Ivermectin.
e.g.
* "Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance"
* "No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases mortality, morbidity, collateral damage, and endemic risk."

Surely people, in consultation with their doctors, can do their own research and make their own decisions. Banning Ivermectin for covid use isn't the democratic way..
If the meta analysis is full of dodgy studies, how could it be any more trustworthy?
 

stoff

Bill McLean (32)
Someone who knows more than me about medical regulation can confirm this, but my strong impression is that drugs come into use by approval, not by rejection, at least in this country.

A drug is only banned because no-one (normally the manufacturer or patent holder who is intensely insentivised to get a drug approved if it helps with Covid-19 treatment) has got it approved for use for a particular purpose.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Someone who knows more than me about medical regulation can confirm this, but my strong impression is that drugs come into use by approval, not by rejection, at least in this country.

A drug is only banned because no-one (normally the manufacturer or patent holder who is intensely insentivised to get a drug approved if it helps with Covid-19 treatment) has got it approved for use for a particular purpose.
The TGA only approves Ivermectin to be prescribed for scabies and certain parasitic infections. Prescribing of oral ivermectin for indications that are not approved is now limited to certain specialists.

So Ivermectin is approved for some diseases but rejected as a covid treatment in Australia.
Some other countries have allowed or encouraged the off-label use of Ivermectin to combat covid.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^ "certain parasitic infections".

Have you considered the possibility that people did some research, figured out what Ivermectin does & doesn't kill & approved it as a treatment option accordingly?

What possible reason would TGA, FDA etc have for not approving something that works? If they're hiding something where are the whistleblowers?

Why would Merck tell people not to use their product to treat Covid, then go to the trouble & expense of developing an oral treatment when they already held the patents for one?
 
Last edited:

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Chuds: "I'm not taking that vaccine as there hasn't been enough time to see if it is effective, or there are harmful side effects. Not enough data!"

Also chuds: "Horse dewormer definitely works based on 5 doctors and a fat, failed, ex-furniture salesman saying so."

Also also chuds: (post dose)

giphy.gif


See also: Andrew Wakefield.
 
Top