CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 13)

CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 13)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

jagnet

4,095 posts

201 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
BlackWidow13 said:
Heads up, ivermectin fanbois.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...

TL;DR: studies produce naff all evidence that it does anything.
"The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates."

14 studies, few of high quality. Over double that still ongoing. Not sure I'd be wanting to call it just yet.

Boringvolvodriver

8,619 posts

42 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
BlackWidow13 said:
GMT13 said:
RE the question of why the potential use of some of the other drugs like Ivermectin have been suppressed.
Heads up, ivermectin fanbois.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...

TL;DR: studies produce naff all evidence that it does anything.
Authors' conclusions

Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials.

SS2.

14,455 posts

237 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
BlackWidow13 said:
GMT13 said:
RE the question of why the potential use of some of the other drugs like Ivermectin have been suppressed.
Heads up, ivermectin fanbois.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...

TL;DR: studies produce naff all evidence that it does anything.
That probably depends on your definition of 'naff all'.

Meta-analysis of Ivermectin trials

TL;DR



Edited by SS2. on Thursday 29th July 13:17

Brave Fart

5,680 posts

110 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
Tuna said:
Brave Fart said:
Freedom, independence and the truth, as you put it, are casualties of this virus as much as anything else. I believe our government have acted very badly indeed throughout - and are still doing (vaccine passports for example). However, China elevates bad behaviour by the state to a whole new level. One that is scary and unacceptable.
Playing devil's advocate here, but China appears to have had a much better 18 months than we have, even allowing for wild misreporting of infection numbers.
OK, and you could include South Korea, another country with very intrusive state control, albeit much more benign than China's.
We may have to disagree here, but here's my view: the level of state control of citizens' lives in either country is not merited by this virus.

Actually, it comes back to the thread title. I do not believe that we should adopt the sort of measures seen in China to deal with covid; the Chinese cure is very much worse than this disease.

Tuna

19,930 posts

283 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
Brave Fart said:
OK, and you could include South Korea, another country with very intrusive state control, albeit much more benign than China's.
We may have to disagree here, but here's my view: the level of state control of citizens' lives in either country is not merited by this virus.

Actually, it comes back to the thread title. I do not believe that we should adopt the sort of measures seen in China to deal with covid; the Chinese cure is very much worse than this disease.
I'm not going to disagree on that front, but when it comes to "preventing covid" and "handling the truth", we have to accept that the very self-centred, "independent" West hasn't exactly shone when it comes to dealing with it. There are a lot of people on this thread banging on about freedom, apparently in complete denial that their choices (all choices) come with consequences.

JagLover

42,265 posts

234 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
Tuna said:
Playing devil's advocate here, but China appears to have had a much better 18 months than we have, even allowing for wild misreporting of infection numbers.
You cannot trust anything coming out of China on Covid.

If you are looking for far Eastern countries to compare us to you need to look at the likes of South Korea or Japan.

bodhi

10,333 posts

228 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
BlackWidow13 said:
GMT13 said:
RE the question of why the potential use of some of the other drugs like Ivermectin have been suppressed.
Heads up, ivermectin fanbois.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...

TL;DR: studies produce naff all evidence that it does anything.
And there's an example of what I was talking about. A study which explicitly states that more information is required, is interpreted as "it does naff all". Personally I always thought the emergence of a potential treatment would be a good thing, and should be encouraged. I guess not.

Even that well known den of anti-vaxxers, the Wall Street Journal picked up on it (paywall incoming)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-...

If it does turn out to be useless then fair enough, but I'd say at least give it a chance. Sadly I'm not seeing too much of that....

TypeRTim

724 posts

93 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
Tuna said:
False information I'm afraid.

We have seen a number of coronaviruses before - that's why this one has a number after it hehe

So when they say "novel", they don't mean they've never worked on coronaviruses, or that they don't have work in the lab relating to coronaviruses.

They did two things differently. Firstly, they pushed forward with a fairly new (and still relatively untested) way to synthesise a vaccine. That wasn't "new science", just existing research applied to a new variant of coronavirus.

Secondly, they pushed through the approvals process at a rate that has never been seen before. These were unique circumstances, so they shortened a process that would normally take years to a few months.

But in both cases, they weren't doing anything new. There wasn't some new invention required, and they were (luckily) quite well prepared with the necessary infrastructure and research. We develop vaccines like this fairly regularly, so it's not so surprising they did so for covid - though the speed is quite astonishing compared to normal research.

And you'll note the vaccines aren't a "fix" - it's encouraging an existing immune system response, and is only 60-70% effective at preventing infection.

That's a world away from repairing lung damage (or even preventing it in the first place) on demand.
Please quote this response and bold the parts that are false information (with evidence)

I never said coronaviruses weren't new. We have at least 4 floating around constantly. But this one, in particular, is new. Otherwise it would just be a mutation of SARS-COV1, it's a novel new strain of corona virus, so to all intents and purposes, it is new.

They did brute force through the 'approvals' process, by being granted Emergency Use Approval. They are still not fully Market Approved. So they have very much, 'cranked it out'.

AFAIK (and I'm open to being proven wrong) the Pfizer Covid vaccine is the first mRNA vaccine to ever be approved for human use. So again, new technology angle can most certainly be applied here.

I know vaccine isn't equivalent to treatment. But, in this case it is being leveraged as a 'treatment' insomuch as we are being told that this is the way we 'beat' the virus. Get everyone vaccinated using these vaccines that have been brute forced through the approvals process and allowed to be deployed en-masse without finishing stage 3 long term trials.

They have very much 'cranked out a fix' in a very short amount of time with regards the initial outbreak and the first approval (less than 12 months iirc?)

Rufus Stone

6,064 posts

55 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
Tuna said:
False information I'm afraid.

We have seen a number of coronaviruses before - that's why this one has a number after it hehe

So when they say "novel", they don't mean they've never worked on coronaviruses, or that they don't have work in the lab relating to coronaviruses.

They did two things differently. Firstly, they pushed forward with a fairly new (and still relatively untested) way to synthesise a vaccine. That wasn't "new science", just existing research applied to a new variant of coronavirus.

Secondly, they pushed through the approvals process at a rate that has never been seen before. These were unique circumstances, so they shortened a process that would normally take years to a few months.

But in both cases, they weren't doing anything new. There wasn't some new invention required, and they were (luckily) quite well prepared with the necessary infrastructure and research. We develop vaccines like this fairly regularly, so it's not so surprising they did so for covid - though the speed is quite astonishing compared to normal research.

And you'll note the vaccines aren't a "fix" - it's encouraging an existing immune system response, and is only 60-70% effective at preventing infection.

That's a world away from repairing lung damage (or even preventing it in the first place) on demand.
Good post.

It won't convince the anti-vaxxers with their emergency experimental drug claims though.

Brave Fart

5,680 posts

110 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
Tuna said:
I'm not going to disagree on that front, but when it comes to "preventing covid" and "handling the truth", we have to accept that the very self-centred, "independent" West hasn't exactly shone when it comes to dealing with it. There are a lot of people on this thread banging on about freedom, apparently in complete denial that their choices (all choices) come with consequences.
Fair enough; if there was a choice as follows:
1) hide the truth from the people, enforce rigid rules so that they comply for their own good, or
2) be open and honest with people, but accept that freedom comes with some risks (more what Sweden did, I suppose).

I would go for 2) every time. We've had mixed results in the West, but I would hate for us to conclude that "we need to be more Chinese".

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
SS2. said:
BlackWidow13 said:
GMT13 said:
RE the question of why the potential use of some of the other drugs like Ivermectin have been suppressed.
Heads up, ivermectin fanbois.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...

TL;DR: studies produce naff all evidence that it does anything.
That probably depends on your definition of 'naff all'.

Meta-analysis of Ivermectin trials

TL;DR



Edited by SS2. on Thursday 29th July 13:17
Is that from the completely anonymous site that also claims 66% improvement from early stage use of HCQ?

Where do I sign?

plasticpig

12,932 posts

224 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
bodhi said:
And there's an example of what I was talking about. A study which explicitly states that more information is required, is interpreted as "it does naff all". Personally I always thought the emergence of a potential treatment would be a good thing, and should be encouraged. I guess not.

Even that well known den of anti-vaxxers, the Wall Street Journal picked up on it (paywall incoming)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-...

If it does turn out to be useless then fair enough, but I'd say at least give it a chance. Sadly I'm not seeing too much of that....
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investigated-possible-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial


jagnet

4,095 posts

201 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
BlackWidow13 said:
Is that from the completely anonymous site that also claims 66% improvement from early stage use of HCQ?

Where do I sign?
Rubbish the source rather than the study - as boring as it is predictable.

"All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix. See [Bryant, Hariyanto, Hill, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses, all with similar results confirming effectiveness."

The sources and data are there for you to repeat the study if you want and then dismiss it based on any failures of the original. Let us know your findings.

bodhi

10,333 posts

228 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
plasticpig said:
bodhi said:
And there's an example of what I was talking about. A study which explicitly states that more information is required, is interpreted as "it does naff all". Personally I always thought the emergence of a potential treatment would be a good thing, and should be encouraged. I guess not.

Even that well known den of anti-vaxxers, the Wall Street Journal picked up on it (paywall incoming)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-...

If it does turn out to be useless then fair enough, but I'd say at least give it a chance. Sadly I'm not seeing too much of that....
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investigated-possible-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial
Ah yes I recall them announcing that ages ago - seems a bit of wasted effort though, as some bloke off a motoring website says it does "naff all" smile

Nimby

4,572 posts

149 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
Re ivermectin - well worth a listen:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09n6yrd

SS2.

14,455 posts

237 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
BlackWidow13 said:
SS2. said:
BlackWidow13 said:
GMT13 said:
RE the question of why the potential use of some of the other drugs like Ivermectin have been suppressed.
Heads up, ivermectin fanbois.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...

TL;DR: studies produce naff all evidence that it does anything.
That probably depends on your definition of 'naff all'.

Meta-analysis of Ivermectin trials

TL;DR



Edited by SS2. on Thursday 29th July 13:17
Is that from the completely anonymous site that also claims 66% improvement from early stage use of HCQ?
Their sources are cited, that includes the peer reviewed research.

'Naff all' would mean every single one (all 60) was wrong.

If that's your claim, it's down to you to prove it.

Tuna

19,930 posts

283 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
TypeRTim said:
Please quote this response and bold the parts that are false information (with evidence)

I never said coronaviruses weren't new. We have at least 4 floating around constantly. But this one, in particular, is new. Otherwise it would just be a mutation of SARS-COV1, it's a novel new strain of corona virus, so to all intents and purposes, it is new.

They did brute force through the 'approvals' process, by being granted Emergency Use Approval. They are still not fully Market Approved. So they have very much, 'cranked it out'.

AFAIK (and I'm open to being proven wrong) the Pfizer Covid vaccine is the first mRNA vaccine to ever be approved for human use. So again, new technology angle can most certainly be applied here.

I know vaccine isn't equivalent to treatment. But, in this case it is being leveraged as a 'treatment' insomuch as we are being told that this is the way we 'beat' the virus. Get everyone vaccinated using these vaccines that have been brute forced through the approvals process and allowed to be deployed en-masse without finishing stage 3 long term trials.

They have very much 'cranked out a fix' in a very short amount of time with regards the initial outbreak and the first approval (less than 12 months iirc?)
I'm not sure what point you are making here.

I was responding to someone asking why there has been limited success when it comes to producing therapeutics. The answer is that it's a difficult job, very hard to speed up, and sometimes not possible.

The fact that we have delivered a workable vaccine in record time doesn't change that. We have been, in many ways, very lucky with Covid.

jagnet

4,095 posts

201 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
Tuna said:
The fact that we have delivered a workable vaccine in record time doesn't change that. We have been, in many ways, very lucky with Covid.
Not just a workable vaccine, but multiple different ones. Very lucky indeed.

Call me a cynic, but it seems a remarkable coincidence that the more public money gets thrown at something and the more that private companies get to profit, the luckier it becomes.

TypeRTim

724 posts

93 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
Tuna said:
TypeRTim said:
Please quote this response and bold the parts that are false information (with evidence)

I never said coronaviruses weren't new. We have at least 4 floating around constantly. But this one, in particular, is new. Otherwise it would just be a mutation of SARS-COV1, it's a novel new strain of corona virus, so to all intents and purposes, it is new.

They did brute force through the 'approvals' process, by being granted Emergency Use Approval. They are still not fully Market Approved. So they have very much, 'cranked it out'.

AFAIK (and I'm open to being proven wrong) the Pfizer Covid vaccine is the first mRNA vaccine to ever be approved for human use. So again, new technology angle can most certainly be applied here.

I know vaccine isn't equivalent to treatment. But, in this case it is being leveraged as a 'treatment' insomuch as we are being told that this is the way we 'beat' the virus. Get everyone vaccinated using these vaccines that have been brute forced through the approvals process and allowed to be deployed en-masse without finishing stage 3 long term trials.

They have very much 'cranked out a fix' in a very short amount of time with regards the initial outbreak and the first approval (less than 12 months iirc?)
I'm not sure what point you are making here.

I was responding to someone asking why there has been limited success when it comes to producing therapeutics. The answer is that it's a difficult job, very hard to speed up, and sometimes not possible.

The fact that we have delivered a workable vaccine in record time doesn't change that. We have been, in many ways, very lucky with Covid.
Tuna said:
TypeRTim said:
You mean like crank out a vaccine for a 'novel coronavirus' which has never been seen before in humans, using delivery technology that has never been implemented in mass vaccination regimes in humans, less than 18 months after the initial outbreak? That kind of 'crank out a fix'
False information I'm afraid.
...
Snipped for brevity
You said my point about cranking out a fix for a new virus, using a new technology was false information.

I'm asking which part of what I posted was false?

This is a new strain of coronavirus not seen before in humans.
Or
The vaccine uses a delivery method never used before in human vaccinations.
Or
That it's being heralded as the 'fix' by various political (and some medical) bodies and personalities around the globe (even though we both acknowledge that vaccination != treatment)

APontus

1,935 posts

34 months

Thursday 29th July 2021
quotequote all
How many mRNA Coronavirus vaccines made it to full authorisation before these ones?
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED