Ivermectin Reviews? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?

[izentrop]

To read if not yet done on Ivermectin:

https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglo ... /2877257/0

For those who want to go further there must be the list of ongoing studies in the article.

As for the HCQ, let's not repeat the same scenario guided by the SRs

After April 3, the day Caly et al. published their in vitro findings on ivermectin and SARS-CoV-2, the research community and the general public have been drawn into two extreme and opposing views on this topic. One group has called for early elimination of the drug for its use against COVID-19, as the effective concentrations reported by Caly et al. were too high to be achieved in vivo, and therefore any effort invested in pursuing this would be a waste and generate a false sense of hope. The other group, out of a just sense of urgency, embarked on promoting widespread use, even without adequate evidence of efficacy and, more importantly, safety for that specific use. ..

...why don't we give ivermectin to those who need it today? People are dying!
The process of widespread drug release is highly regulated. It is for good reasons. Lessons have been learned after serious tragedies.

The main conditions required for the approval of a drug for use at the population level are proven efficacy and safety. For ivermectin, there is strong evidence for safety when used for the approved indication at approved doses. There is very limited evidence for the safety of ivermectin at higher doses (see table link above) and even less evidence for its safety when used in COVID-19 patients who have tendency to have pro-inflammatory conditions. These pro-inflammatory conditions may increase the penetration of ivermectin into the central nervous system with unknown consequences (see safety above). Other potential problems include drug interactions with certain antivirals given to patients with COVID-19, such as ritonavir, which can increase ivermectin levels.

[ABC2019]

To read if not yet done on Ivermectin:

https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglo ... /2877257/0

For those who want to go further there must be the list of ongoing studies in the article.

thank you for this article much more informative than what we have seen so far on this forum ...

[Obamot]

You said it ... Trolls at your level do misinformation ...
Fortunately there is the admirable work of Adrien, Remundo, VetusLignum and a few others ...

For those who want to do more post412060.html # p412060

As for HCQ, let's not repeat the same scenario

The problem with ivermectin is determining at what minimum dose it 'would' have an effect. While for hydroxychloroquine, the dose is known.

As much as there is no hindsight on the new molecules, it would be necessary to stop this sterile discrimination of hydroxychloroquine. And the reason is easy to understand, the score to beat is 0,5% lethality ... Since those are the numbers ...
And this molecule (HCQ) is the most studied and the one of which a significant percentage of studies - and especially observational studies - give more than encouraging signs on its use, the only current one, it is this molecule, and question of the best probabilities of cure VS risk close to “zero”, would have to quote me any alternative: I see no other .... And the fact that instead there is nothing else, you shouldn't quibble guys ... oh yes, we just improved patient care and comfort (“fair” but essential ...) given the effects of anticoagulants, etc ...

Hydroxychloroquine can do no harm, on the contrary, since it will basify the cellular environment, which will improve the assimilation of other molecules at the same level (and it is played out at tenth of pH ...):

even if it only had a placebo effect, it would be good to take, but it will necessarily be much more (because there is an effect at the level of the expectation of the molecule, I know, it is “bad” ) Azithromycin is known to have an effect on infections, and you can help prepare to multiply the effects of such treatment post412060.html # p412060

[Obamot]

See the passage concerning hydroxychloroquine at 11 minutes, in the video (here direct link on the passage):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajW-d83yMHQ&feature=youtu.be&t=660
... and which demonstrates with a high degree of confidence why this molecule will be very useful in the assimilation of other drugs of the treatment. Knowing that one of the keys to the fight against covid-19 (and against viruses in general) is the controlled permeability of the cell membrane (which must tend towards impermeability to viruses)

[Paul72]

See the passage concerning hydroxychloroquine at 11 minutes, in the video (here direct link on the passage):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajW-d83yMHQ&feature=youtu.be&t=660
... and which demonstrates with a high degree of confidence why this molecule will be very useful in the assimilation of other drugs of the treatment. Knowing that one of the keys to the fight against covid-19 (and against viruses in general) is the controlled permeability of the cell membrane (which must tend towards impermeability to viruses)

You are right (as always).

Too bad not everyone shares your confidence in the only effective AND safe treatment.

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/malad ... 86719.html

[Obamot]

Oh no, I'm not always right and I'm very optimistic!

For example, I was amazed:
- after my friend, head of clinic at HUG, confirmed to me that treatment with HCQ + Az was the best according to HUG;
- that when he told me, we were only talking about that, to the point that he himself wanted to take it as a preventive measure ...
- that Professor Calmy also said on TV " that she would take if she had covid-19 "(With a reservation)
- that then there was the whole affair in the affair with Gilead and the fake study on the HCQ ... Withdrawn from the Lancet (the damage was done)
- American pressures.
- which changed the official discourse of the HUG ... who claimed that they were releasing this molecule (after hehehe pandemic peak)
- that at the time of the decision again, they COULD NOT, as they were kind enough to claim at the time - and in the battle between the HCQ vs. Remdesivir - say that “supposedly the Gilead molecule would have won”, Since they later admitted that it did not reduce hospital lethality (which implicitly made it clear that HCQ + Az gave the best expected results).
- that when Pr Calmy spoke out to say that they were dropping the HCQ the day after the study withdrawn from the Lancet, she COULD NOT make this decision, since she did not have the scientific elements for it. do, as long as the results of the end of the study will not be known until next month ...!

It is therefore a political decision to interfere in the public health affairs of a sovereign country ... But any small country that would not weigh heavily if the American giant were to target it in retaliation ...

Despite that, I remain circumspect and dubious about the future outcome of this file, (and therefore I understand the hundreds of pages through which the detractors of the HCQ have made arguments of all kinds, but at some point we must decide ) I say therefore in a reasonable and moderate way, that HCQ + Az and various, is the treatment who has the best probability of recovery, since to choose there is nothing else that has a better overall confidence ratio. That the risks of this treatment, even at 400mg of starting dose then 200mg are really insignificant, And it is difficult to attack since there is no (other) treatment of which the knowledge that we have is so advanced and advances ... So I'm right or I'm wrong but it's the one I would take if I had covid-19, being sure to have better chances than anything else (in the current state of the best knowledge that we have ...) And taking into account my own work in orthomolecular medicine, which confirms me in the fact that in any case, the HCQ would be of a precious help “by basifying in a way required the cellular environment ”, therefore of minimal value (which is not something easy to do when one is sick) and that would then give a saving kick“ to the natural immune system ... ”As I shown by the video and above.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

To read if not yet done on Ivermectin:

https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglo ... /2877257/0

For those who want to go further there must be the list of ongoing studies in the article.

Very interesting

For those who would have missed the link I posted on a site dedicated to this molecule ...

And in particular the page which groups the studies

https://www.thecompleteguidetohealth.co ... rials.html

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

The release of what might be called the Bangla Desh preliminary study on ivermectin.
It is on the results of Bangla Desh that the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Assam had dropped hydroxychloroquine for this ivermectin doxycycline combination

For the record, another study which demonstrated the superiority of this dual therapy over that of Raoult
A Randomized Trial of Ivermectin-Doxycycline and Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin therapy is COVID19 patients.

In principle, this opens the way to the pursuit of randomized studies and all the hoopla

To be continued....

The article that relates it

The study
"A Case Series of 100 Covid-19 Positive Patients Treated with Combination of Ivermectin and Doxycycline"

This observational study, consisting of 64 males and 36 females was conducted from April to May 2020 (Figure 2) at Bangladesh Medical College. The oldest patient was 84 years old and the youngest was 8 years old with most patients between 21 and 40 years old (Figure 3).

Patients were divided into 3 groups: mild (73), Moderate (20) and severe (7), depending on their symptoms.

Among the severe patients, three had more fever than 103 Fahrenheit for seven days with severe cough and pulmonary infiltrates, three had severe loose movements and one had uncontrolled diabetes.

Of the remainder, 20 patients presented with moderate symptoms of mild fever (100 Fahrenheit) and mild cough. In addition, 73 had
symptoms of malaise, sore throat, loss of smell, loss of taste and body aches. Fifty percent symptomatic improvement in mild to moderate patients was observed between the 3rd and 5th day after the start of treatment.

All 7 patients' severe symptoms improved by 50% on the 7th day of treatment. A new test was carried out between 4 and 18 days after the start of treatment (Figure 4).

Twenty-five patients underwent retesting between days 4 and 8, 51 on days 9-13, and 24 on days 14-18 after starting treatment.

All patients tested negative.

None required ICU admission and no deaths have been reported.

[Obamot]

In principle, this opens the way to the pursuit of randomized studies and all the hoopla

To be continued....

For me it can only be justified “ethically” if it is Ivermectin VS hydroxychloroquine (and not against placebo)

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

In principle, this opens the way to the pursuit of randomized studies and all the hoopla

To be continued....

For me it can only be justified “ethically” if it is Ivermectin VS hydroxychloroquine (and not against placebo)

"The advantage" of these countries is that the tests are carried out on a life-size basis so it would surprise me that we are encumbered with these Raoultian states of mind.