FDA Was Right All Along

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089809588/ivermectin-covid-treatment-brazil-study

For some reason “conservatives” fell in love with the horse worm POISON Ivermectin and spent months denouncing the FDA for not endorsing it for Covid treatment. Ignoring medical science led to hundreds of thousands of doses being consumed by human beings with no benefit and multiple hospitalizations from its effects. Well, this new study confirms what informed medical science has been saying all along – Ivermectin is NOT an effective treatment for Covid-19 at any stage. Maybe the next time Joe Rogan offers medical advice “conservatives” will trust the FDA instead. Or not.

Ivermectin got on the radar because of early anecdotal evidence that it did some good in impoverished African countries. Yes, it did. Here is why. It kills worms. That is what it does. Internal parasites weaken your body. Killing them gives you a better chance to overcome Covid. Internal parasites are common in such countries. In the United States? Not so much.

15 thoughts on “FDA Was Right All Along

  1. I am waiting for the same people who are pushing for the FDA to approve Novovax based on international studies to claim that this international study means nothing.

    I may be wrong, but don’t be surprised when it does.

    Like

  2. I don’t have time to read the study yet, just got back from fishing and have to take grandaughter to jujitsu, i’ll read it later and see the methodology

    Like

        1. “Methodology and publication decisions are not similar criteria.”

          Yes, so what.

          The point is that the New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most respected journals in the world. They do not publish the kind of schlock that you people link to all the time. If the authors methodology and conclusions are not sound they would not be published.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “If the authors methodology and conclusions are not sound they would not be published.”

          That’s simply not true as a matter of rexord, but more importantly: even good methodology and accurate conclusions can be insignificant.

          Like

        3. I am really not surprised to see you people pooh- pooh a careful peer reviewed study in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. I already knew that you were wedded to the medical genius of Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones. Hell, you people cheered when courts forced doctors to adminsiter this poison to their patients against all medical judgment.

          Liked by 2 people

      1. It has fallen short many times in the past.

        Remember that for 40 years it published studies telling you how many eggs you could eat in a week, or how much red meat, to keep your cholesterol down.

        There is a great deal of substandard research published.

        And even more often, organizations like NPR misinterpret what the study means and the degree of certainty it carries.

        Like

        1. The link to the NEJM is in the npr article. The full study is published there. At least it was the NEJM site.

          No need to read npr article at all. Just click the link.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Yes, here is the link

            Study pdf

            It is interesting but in many ways disappointing.

            0f about 3500 patients, 679 received Ivermectin, and an equal number received a placebo. 2000 or so others received some other treatment. HCQ, monoclonal antibodies, metformin and others, notably fluvoxamine, but the results for those 2000 patients were not tallied in the study. It would be very useful to compare the results of Ivermectin to HCQ, or Fluvoxamine.

            Patients were symptomatic for up to 7 days before treatment. Remember that the standard of care, Paxlovid, is not given after 5 days.

            The metric was hospitalization, not severe illness, though those secondary outcomes did appear in a table.

            The results showed a small benefit for Ivermectin, but not statistically significant.

            It is really disappointing that the other treatment modalities were not compared.

            Also, keep in mind that the MASK protocols were not just Ivermectin, Ivermectin was one of a series of drugs given at specific stages of the disease.

            It would have been far more useful to have compared the full MASK protocol to a placebo but of course, that has been overtaken by time. At this point, such a study would be malpractice as better drugs are now available.

            But the study does tell us that Ivermectin, given too late and without the rest of the protocol does not reduce hospitalization.

            Like

          2. “It is interesting but in many ways disappointing.”

            Uh, it was a study of Ivermectin. Why would you expect THIS paper to report on other drugs?

            Maybe it is just me, but I see a very large dose of defending pre-conceived junk science ideas in your “critique” of this definitive study of Ivermectin. A sample with 679 subjects treated with Ivermectin matched by 679 treated with placebos is large scale for such a focused study. If Ivermectin had a benefit it would have showed up. None did. Confirming many other studies. End of story but you seem unable to give up Trump science even with hard data and authoritative peer review. Strange.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “If Ivermectin had a benefit it would have showed up.”

            Nope. Read Dr. Tabor’s analysis of the methodology carefully. The protocol used did show a slight benefit, but couldn’t have been conclusive on the question of benefit because of the design of the study.

            Like

          4. The “gold standard” of testing was used in the Brazilian study (Double blind testing).

            I knew that the good doctor would find a way to denigrate the similar INTERNATIONAL studies that he has cited previously. Novavax comes to mind.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. “Read Dr. Tabor’s analysis of the methodology carefully.”

            What part of “statistically insignificant” do you not understand? If you were to test two different placebos in this way, ONE of them to a near certainty would show a “statistically insignificant” benefit.

            Dr. Tabor even mentioning a “benefit” was sophistry to fool the easily and eagerly fooled. It worked on you. Ivermectin kills worms. Period. If you have worms take it, otherwise don’t.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s