PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome (5 Viewers)

[jhib]

All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors.

Not sure this is helpful. Sometimes people like me spend 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Maybe the site is bogus and they are indeed "bad actors". But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

The actual site you linked to is simply a library of articles from various publications.

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.

I don't think bogus or bad actor should pertain to that site, but of course people can and do (intentionally or not) use it to give a greater sense of legitimacy to articles.

The review itself is from the American Journal of Therapeutics. As far as I'm aware, it is generally respected (please someone with more knowledge correct me if I'm wrong.) That review was in the May/June 2021 issue. An updated review was posted in the Nov/Dec issue of the same Journal. The summary (I bolded the final sentence):

The trials published in 2022 were performed in 3 continents (North America, South America and Asia) and involved 2,425 patients treated with ivermectin and 2,368 patients who received placebo. The severity spectrum of COVID-19 infection was wide, and included asymptomatic persons, outpatients and hospitalized patients with mild-to moderate severity, as well as individuals with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonias. None of these trials indicated that ivermectin was better than placebo regarding mortality and frequency of severe presentations of the infection. Ivermectin is not effective and should not be prescribed for acute COVID-19 infection.

 

[Joe Bryant]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

No, I'm not.

You went well beyond "not beneficial". You wrote:

"All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

"This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors."

I spent 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

Maybe the site is bogus and the people at the site are indeed "bad actors". I don't know. But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

 

[RCon]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

No, I'm not.

You went well beyond "not beneficial". You wrote:

"All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

"This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors."

I spent 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

Maybe the site is bogus and the people at the site are indeed "bad actors". I don't know. But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

This is exactly the problem, Joe. You spent "5 seconds Googling", but didn't bother to spend enough time to thoroughly evaluate what you found. And that's exactly why false info needs to be repeatedly called out. Because anyone can post something untrue and it's impossible to debunk them all.

 

[Joe Bryant]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

No, I'm not.

You went well beyond "not beneficial". You wrote:

"All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

"This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors."

I spent 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

Maybe the site is bogus and the people at the site are indeed "bad actors". I don't know. But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

This is exactly the problem, Joe. You spent "5 seconds Googling", but didn't bother to spend enough time to thoroughly evaluate what you found. And that's exactly why false info needs to be repeatedly called out. Because anyone can post something untrue and it's impossible to debunk them all.

So you're saying this conclusion is "false info"?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

Maybe you haven't been able to read the whole thread.

Interesting you and @fatness want to claim I'm playing one side.

When I've gone out of my way to try to be even handed on both sides.

There was accusation about "vaccine bootlickers"

Post in thread 'PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome'

Mar 2, 2025

I believe Vaccine bootlickers need to be shot down

Please do better than this. We don't want the thread locked due to derogatory insults to other points of view.

Just responding to all the "anti-vaxxers" nonsense that are just using that term to push their own views.

Yes, neither of those terms are very helpful when used to smear the other side. Certainly not all people in support of vaccines are "bootlickers". And certainly not all people who had a negative experience with vaccines are "anti-vaxxers". Like most things, we do better if we have discussion and...

• Joe Bryant

• 
• 

Yes, neither of those terms are very helpful when used to smear the other side. Certainly not all people in support of vaccines are "bootlickers". And certainly not all people who had a negative experience with vaccines are "anti-vaxxers". Like most things, we do better if we have discussion and not jump to labels.

 

[LawFitz]

Its odd to me because I expect most of us have had the experience of getting the flu after getting an annual flu vaccine. We know the flu bug mutates constantly and sometimes the version that was in our shot is not effective against a new strain.

Your annual flu vaccine does not include Spike proteins.

And it is not mRNA.
(but could soon be)

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

That's why I asked the question.

 

[MTskibum]

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

The science study you link was a very real science study that showed a ton of promise. Because it showed promise it prompted much follow up research into the same topic, however the follow up research did not turn out as well.

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com

Research into the use of ivermectin (a drug that has an established safety and efficacy record in many parasitic diseases) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of COVID-19 has illustrated this problem well. Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin1, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Why/how?... Because I also believe many of said deaths could also have been prevented if the same pyramid had not ignored and/or demonized existing and effective prophylactics such as vit C, D, Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

Have been keeping up with my C, D and Zinc regimen since the pandemic. One good thing that came from it.

 

[LawFitz]

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

The science study you link was a very real science study that showed a ton of promise. Because it showed promise it prompted much follow up research into the same topic, however the follow up research did not turn out as well.

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com

Research into the use of ivermectin (a drug that has an established safety and efficacy record in many parasitic diseases) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of COVID-19 has illustrated this problem well. Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin1, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses

If you have tried Ivermectin the last few years, you know it works to fight flu and Covid. Very well. My opinion. No links.

 

[BlackCrowes]

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

The science study you link was a very real science study that showed a ton of promise. Because it showed promise it prompted much follow up research into the same topic, however the follow up research did not turn out as well.

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com

Research into the use of ivermectin (a drug that has an established safety and efficacy record in many parasitic diseases) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of COVID-19 has illustrated this problem well. Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin1, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses

If you have tried Ivermectin the last few years, you know it works to fight flu and Covid. Very well. My opinion. No links.

<----- me

 

[Joe Schmo]

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

The science study you link was a very real science study that showed a ton of promise. Because it showed promise it prompted much follow up research into the same topic, however the follow up research did not turn out as well.

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com

Research into the use of ivermectin (a drug that has an established safety and efficacy record in many parasitic diseases) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of COVID-19 has illustrated this problem well. Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin1, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses

If you have tried Ivermectin the last few years, you know it works to fight flu and Covid. Very well. My opinion. No links.

I drink orange juice and eat dark chocolate and I stay healthy.

 

[BlackCrowes]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

That's why I asked the question.

it wasn't (intentionally) false information from bad actors. it was just a flawed review that included now-withdrawn studies.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

That's why I asked the question.

it wasn't false information from bad actors. it was just a flawed review.

Great point. I feel like mistakes are always viewed as purposeful now, when in reality, most of the time they are honest mistakes.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Its odd to me because I expect most of us have had the experience of getting the flu after getting an annual flu vaccine. We know the flu bug mutates constantly and sometimes the version that was in our shot is not effective against a new strain.

Your annual flu vaccine does not include Spike proteins.

And it is not mRNA.
(but could soon be)

My point isn't to claim the two are identical, only that the public common experience is or should be comfortable with the notion that vaccines are generally not 100% effective in preventing infection, with the flu vaccine being one of many examples. No one says the measles vaccine is a "failure" because its 98% effective. We have friends - a married couple who are both doctors - who were hosting parties and having kids' sleepovers pretty much the whole time. My son was over at their house all the time during the pandemic period. The dad is a pediatrician and he told me they are vaccinated and also 100% certain they will both get COVID multiple times because of their profession. For me this was common knowledge and its only people who are being disingenuous or actively ignorant who claim this vaccine failed because vaccinated people still got COVID.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

That's why I asked the question.

it wasn't (intentionally) false information from bad actors. it was just a flawed review that included now-withdrawn studies.

Thank you. Where do you see that?

When I see the study on. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

Pierre Kory 1,*, Gianfranco Umberto Meduri 2, Joseph Varon 3, Jose Iglesias 4, Paul E Marik 5

I see a few notes.

First is "See letter "Ivermectin, A Reanalysis of the Data" on page e579."

To the Editor:

Our article entitled “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19” was recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R1">1</a> Our article included randomized and observational trial meta-analyses on the efficacy of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Recently, the study conducted by Elgazzar et al<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R2">2</a> has come under scrutiny with accusations of scientific misconduct. His paper was apparently retracted without his knowledge and without giving him the opportunity to defend these serious claims. This situation is most unfortunate. While this issue is being resolved, we decided to redo the original meta-analyses excluding this study. The summary point estimates were largely unaffected when the study by Elgazzar et al was removed. The revised forest plots are provided below (Figures 1–3).

Secondly,

An expression of concern has been published for this article. See Am J Ther. 2022 Feb 14;29(2):e231.
The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021;28(3): e299–e318.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least one of the primary sources of the meta-analysis contained in the article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> These allegations were first made after the publication of this article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a> The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to raise questions regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> Currently, the investigation of these allegations is incomplete and inconclusive.

This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Dr. Pierre Kory and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>

The American Journal of Therapeutics is steadfastly committed to upholding truth in science and the highest standards in publication ethics. We will update our decision regarding this work should more information become available.

And lastly,

This article has been corrected. See Am J Ther. 2023 Sep 28;28(6):e813.

In the article that appeared on pages e299–e318 in the May/June 2021 issue of American Journal of Therapeutics, the year mentioned in the following sentence should be 2021 rather than 2020: “As of February 21, 2020,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501342/#R1">1</a> the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States reached 510,248 with more than 9.3 million active cases, the highest number to date.”

Is there something else that explains that this study was false and now withdrawn?

 

[BlackCrowes]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

That's why I asked the question.

it wasn't (intentionally) false information from bad actors. it was just a flawed review that included now-withdrawn studies.

Thank you. Where do you see that?

When I see the study on. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

Pierre Kory 1,*, Gianfranco Umberto Meduri 2, Joseph Varon 3, Jose Iglesias 4, Paul E Marik 5

I see a few notes.

First is "See letter "Ivermectin, A Reanalysis of the Data" on page e579."

To the Editor:

Our article entitled “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19” was recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R1">1</a> Our article included randomized and observational trial meta-analyses on the efficacy of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Recently, the study conducted by Elgazzar et al<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R2">2</a> has come under scrutiny with accusations of scientific misconduct. His paper was apparently retracted without his knowledge and without giving him the opportunity to defend these serious claims. This situation is most unfortunate. While this issue is being resolved, we decided to redo the original meta-analyses excluding this study. The summary point estimates were largely unaffected when the study by Elgazzar et al was removed. The revised forest plots are provided below (Figures 1–3).

Secondly,

An expression of concern has been published for this article. See Am J Ther. 2022 Feb 14;29(2):e231.
The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021;28(3): e299–e318.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least one of the primary sources of the meta-analysis contained in the article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> These allegations were first made after the publication of this article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a> The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to raise questions regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> Currently, the investigation of these allegations is incomplete and inconclusive.

This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Dr. Pierre Kory and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>

The American Journal of Therapeutics is steadfastly committed to upholding truth in science and the highest standards in publication ethics. We will update our decision regarding this work should more information become available.

And lastly,

This article has been corrected. See Am J Ther. 2023 Sep 28;28(6):e813.

In the article that appeared on pages e299–e318 in the May/June 2021 issue of American Journal of Therapeutics, the year mentioned in the following sentence should be 2021 rather than 2020: “As of February 21, 2020,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501342/#R1">1</a> the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States reached 510,248 with more than 9.3 million active cases, the highest number to date.”

Is there something else that explains that this study was false and now withdrawn?

from the nature article posted previously - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y
Click on the "1" superscript in the below paragraph

The authors of one recently published meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-19 have publicly stated that they will now reanalyze and republish their now-retracted meta-analysis and will no longer include either of the two papers just mentioned. As these two papers were the only studies included in that meta-analysis to demonstrate an independently significant reduction in mortality, the revision will probably show no mortality benefit for ivermectin.

edit: sorry, i think they're talking about a different study. hang on....
no, that is referring to Elgazzar et al.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Is this a thing where there are different studies?

This is a thing where they have tried over and over where a different group has tried to replicate the results in the claim study and can't and get different results. Happens all the time.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Maybe someone here can answer this for me. Why don't we use mRNA technology with the flu? Or why don't we use the same technology for covid as we do the flu?

They are coming. There's a ton of stuff in the works, not just for viruses. People are going to have a really hard time holding onto the "lack of safety" aspect of this approach if they are being honest with themselves.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Its odd to me because I expect most of us have had the experience of getting the flu after getting an annual flu vaccine. We know the flu bug mutates constantly and sometimes the version that was in our shot is not effective against a new strain.

Your annual flu vaccine does not include Spike proteins.

And it is not mRNA.
(but could soon be)

Neither do these mRNA vaccines. Flu vaccines DO have things like weakened versions of the virus and formaldehyde and the like. Many chemicals foreign to the body required for current vaccines to be made stable.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

That's why I asked the question.

it wasn't (intentionally) false information from bad actors. it was just a flawed review that included now-withdrawn studies.

Thank you. Where do you see that?

When I see the study on. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

Pierre Kory 1,*, Gianfranco Umberto Meduri 2, Joseph Varon 3, Jose Iglesias 4, Paul E Marik 5

I see a few notes.

First is "See letter "Ivermectin, A Reanalysis of the Data" on page e579."

To the Editor:

Our article entitled “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19” was recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R1">1</a> Our article included randomized and observational trial meta-analyses on the efficacy of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Recently, the study conducted by Elgazzar et al<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R2">2</a> has come under scrutiny with accusations of scientific misconduct. His paper was apparently retracted without his knowledge and without giving him the opportunity to defend these serious claims. This situation is most unfortunate. While this issue is being resolved, we decided to redo the original meta-analyses excluding this study. The summary point estimates were largely unaffected when the study by Elgazzar et al was removed. The revised forest plots are provided below (Figures 1–3).

Secondly,

An expression of concern has been published for this article. See Am J Ther. 2022 Feb 14;29(2):e231.
The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021;28(3): e299–e318.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least one of the primary sources of the meta-analysis contained in the article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> These allegations were first made after the publication of this article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a> The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to raise questions regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> Currently, the investigation of these allegations is incomplete and inconclusive.

This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Dr. Pierre Kory and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>

The American Journal of Therapeutics is steadfastly committed to upholding truth in science and the highest standards in publication ethics. We will update our decision regarding this work should more information become available.

And lastly,

This article has been corrected. See Am J Ther. 2023 Sep 28;28(6):e813.

In the article that appeared on pages e299–e318 in the May/June 2021 issue of American Journal of Therapeutics, the year mentioned in the following sentence should be 2021 rather than 2020: “As of February 21, 2020,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501342/#R1">1</a> the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States reached 510,248 with more than 9.3 million active cases, the highest number to date.”

Is there something else that explains that this study was false and now withdrawn?

You have to follow it rather closely. The studies tell on each other or support each other, but it's all left out there for all to see and digest. That's the system. So, when you see something like this, you then go look for studies that corroborate or reject the findings. There have been many subsequent studies trying to recreate the results and they can't. You don't go get nice summaries from the active researchers. That's left to third parties most of the time. Unfortunately, those third parties almost always have an agenda they want to push and will NOT provide a comprehensive set of studies/research to show the whole story. Like we're seeing in this very thread. This is why it's important to have peer reviewed research studies as meaningful evidence of any argument one is trying to make.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Its odd to me because I expect most of us have had the experience of getting the flu after getting an annual flu vaccine. We know the flu bug mutates constantly and sometimes the version that was in our shot is not effective against a new strain.

Your annual flu vaccine does not include Spike proteins.

And it is not mRNA.
(but could soon be)

My point isn't to claim the two are identical, only that the public common experience is or should be comfortable with the notion that vaccines are generally not 100% effective in preventing infection, with the flu vaccine being one of many examples. No one says the measles vaccine is a "failure" because its 98% effective. We have friends - a married couple who are both doctors - who were hosting parties and having kids' sleepovers pretty much the whole time. My son was over at their house all the time during the pandemic period. The dad is a pediatrician and he told me they are vaccinated and also 100% certain they will both get COVID multiple times because of their profession. For me this was common knowledge and its only people who are being disingenuous or actively ignorant who claim this vaccine failed because vaccinated people still got COVID.

Do you think they oversold the expectations to the public that didn't do the due diligence you did? Is it fair to assume a large portion of the population just wanted the pandemic over and didn't necessarily contact their pcp?

My local health department offered a clinic at the university and almost everyone i know got their initial two doses there, or in a similar setting without ever talking to a doctor. The national guard was administering the shots.

We all remember the mask debacle early on. "Don't bother with masks they won't help" then "everyone wear a mask". It's not unreasonable to think messaging played a role then and we're still feeling the impact now is it?

I guess i can see it both ways.

There's no doubt the messaging was terrible, confusing and at times directly self-contradictory. I feel I did the least amount of due diligence possible as I completely outsourced the decision to my doctor. I strongly agree with the notion that mistakes were made and there's a lot to be learned. One thing I remember is Dr. Fauci saying (paraphrasing), "If people complain the steps we're taking are overkill, that shows we're doing it right." That drives my mindset on this, and I understand you have every right to feel differently given your terrible experience.

 

[Scoresman]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

That's why I asked the question.

it wasn't (intentionally) false information from bad actors. it was just a flawed review that included now-withdrawn studies.

Thank you. Where do you see that?

When I see the study on. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

Pierre Kory 1,*, Gianfranco Umberto Meduri 2, Joseph Varon 3, Jose Iglesias 4, Paul E Marik 5

I see a few notes.

First is "See letter "Ivermectin, A Reanalysis of the Data" on page e579."

To the Editor:

Our article entitled “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19” was recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R1">1</a> Our article included randomized and observational trial meta-analyses on the efficacy of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Recently, the study conducted by Elgazzar et al<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R2">2</a> has come under scrutiny with accusations of scientific misconduct. His paper was apparently retracted without his knowledge and without giving him the opportunity to defend these serious claims. This situation is most unfortunate. While this issue is being resolved, we decided to redo the original meta-analyses excluding this study. The summary point estimates were largely unaffected when the study by Elgazzar et al was removed. The revised forest plots are provided below (Figures 1–3).

Secondly,

An expression of concern has been published for this article. See Am J Ther. 2022 Feb 14;29(2):e231.
The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021;28(3): e299–e318.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least one of the primary sources of the meta-analysis contained in the article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> These allegations were first made after the publication of this article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a> The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to raise questions regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> Currently, the investigation of these allegations is incomplete and inconclusive.

This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Dr. Pierre Kory and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>

The American Journal of Therapeutics is steadfastly committed to upholding truth in science and the highest standards in publication ethics. We will update our decision regarding this work should more information become available.

And lastly,

This article has been corrected. See Am J Ther. 2023 Sep 28;28(6):e813.

In the article that appeared on pages e299–e318 in the May/June 2021 issue of American Journal of Therapeutics, the year mentioned in the following sentence should be 2021 rather than 2020: “As of February 21, 2020,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501342/#R1">1</a> the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States reached 510,248 with more than 9.3 million active cases, the highest number to date.”

Is there something else that explains that this study was false and now withdrawn?

I think it's tough to blame Joe here. He found a study on google, and myself as well, after reading it, it's not exactly clear how to tell when a study has been followed up on and either proven otherwise or not. Makes me wonder what's what. And most people are only going to spend 5 seconds googling something. It's how google is supposed to work.

This is a concern when googling anything of importance though. It's kind of like when googling symptoms and one result says I have ball cancer and another says it's a migraine, etc.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is a concern when googling anything of importance though. It's kind of like when googling symptoms and one result says I have ball cancer and another says it's a migraine, etc.

Yes. Especially if people were claiming no results say it's a migraine.

Or to claim saying it's a migraine needs to be called out every single time it's pushed because it's blatantly false info and anyone who says different is a bad actor.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

That's why I asked the question.

it wasn't (intentionally) false information from bad actors. it was just a flawed review that included now-withdrawn studies.

Thank you. Where do you see that?

When I see the study on. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

Pierre Kory 1,*, Gianfranco Umberto Meduri 2, Joseph Varon 3, Jose Iglesias 4, Paul E Marik 5

I see a few notes.

First is "See letter "Ivermectin, A Reanalysis of the Data" on page e579."

To the Editor:

Our article entitled “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19” was recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R1">1</a> Our article included randomized and observational trial meta-analyses on the efficacy of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Recently, the study conducted by Elgazzar et al<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R2">2</a> has come under scrutiny with accusations of scientific misconduct. His paper was apparently retracted without his knowledge and without giving him the opportunity to defend these serious claims. This situation is most unfortunate. While this issue is being resolved, we decided to redo the original meta-analyses excluding this study. The summary point estimates were largely unaffected when the study by Elgazzar et al was removed. The revised forest plots are provided below (Figures 1–3).

Secondly,

An expression of concern has been published for this article. See Am J Ther. 2022 Feb 14;29(2):e231.
The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021;28(3): e299–e318.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least one of the primary sources of the meta-analysis contained in the article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> These allegations were first made after the publication of this article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a> The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to raise questions regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> Currently, the investigation of these allegations is incomplete and inconclusive.

This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Dr. Pierre Kory and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>

The American Journal of Therapeutics is steadfastly committed to upholding truth in science and the highest standards in publication ethics. We will update our decision regarding this work should more information become available.

And lastly,

This article has been corrected. See Am J Ther. 2023 Sep 28;28(6):e813.

In the article that appeared on pages e299–e318 in the May/June 2021 issue of American Journal of Therapeutics, the year mentioned in the following sentence should be 2021 rather than 2020: “As of February 21, 2020,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501342/#R1">1</a> the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States reached 510,248 with more than 9.3 million active cases, the highest number to date.”

Is there something else that explains that this study was false and now withdrawn?

I think it's tough to blame Joe here. He found a study on google, and myself as well, after reading it, it's not exactly clear how to tell when a study has been followed up on and either proven otherwise or not. Makes me wonder what's what. And most people are only going to spend 5 seconds googling something. It's how google is supposed to work.

This is a concern when googling anything of importance though. It's kind of like when googling symptoms and one result says I have ball cancer and another says it's a migraine, etc.

I think this tracks pretty closely to age. No offense to the older demo on this site, and I know I am the minority, but I think it's unrealistic to think that google is going to give you a complete picture of a complicated and fast moving/changing topic like that of the vaccines made for COVID in 5 seconds. Any science worth following takes actual following and paying attention. I know I am part of the generation labeled with all the attention spans and "gimmie gimmie gimmie", but I think that spans generations and that's a huge problem. People don't take the time to process for themselves and learn about things. They often "outsource" that to someone/thing else. That's a problem.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

If there is ONE thing I hope that people learned from the pandemic, it would be that it's ok to rely on your doctor to guide you through it. They have your best interests in mind. Ignore politicians, drug execs and "experts" appointed by politicians. Also ignore the random youtube/SM dopes who are experts on everything.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

That's why I asked the question.

it wasn't (intentionally) false information from bad actors. it was just a flawed review that included now-withdrawn studies.

Thank you. Where do you see that?

When I see the study on. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

Pierre Kory 1,*, Gianfranco Umberto Meduri 2, Joseph Varon 3, Jose Iglesias 4, Paul E Marik 5

I see a few notes.

First is "See letter "Ivermectin, A Reanalysis of the Data" on page e579."

To the Editor:

Our article entitled “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19” was recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R1">1</a> Our article included randomized and observational trial meta-analyses on the efficacy of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Recently, the study conducted by Elgazzar et al<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R2">2</a> has come under scrutiny with accusations of scientific misconduct. His paper was apparently retracted without his knowledge and without giving him the opportunity to defend these serious claims. This situation is most unfortunate. While this issue is being resolved, we decided to redo the original meta-analyses excluding this study. The summary point estimates were largely unaffected when the study by Elgazzar et al was removed. The revised forest plots are provided below (Figures 1–3).

Secondly,

An expression of concern has been published for this article. See Am J Ther. 2022 Feb 14;29(2):e231.
The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021;28(3): e299–e318.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least one of the primary sources of the meta-analysis contained in the article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> These allegations were first made after the publication of this article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a> The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to raise questions regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> Currently, the investigation of these allegations is incomplete and inconclusive.

This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Dr. Pierre Kory and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>

The American Journal of Therapeutics is steadfastly committed to upholding truth in science and the highest standards in publication ethics. We will update our decision regarding this work should more information become available.

And lastly,

This article has been corrected. See Am J Ther. 2023 Sep 28;28(6):e813.

In the article that appeared on pages e299–e318 in the May/June 2021 issue of American Journal of Therapeutics, the year mentioned in the following sentence should be 2021 rather than 2020: “As of February 21, 2020,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501342/#R1">1</a> the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States reached 510,248 with more than 9.3 million active cases, the highest number to date.”

Is there something else that explains that this study was false and now withdrawn?

I think it's tough to blame Joe here. He found a study on google, and myself as well, after reading it, it's not exactly clear how to tell when a study has been followed up on and either proven otherwise or not. Makes me wonder what's what. And most people are only going to spend 5 seconds googling something. It's how google is supposed to work.

This is a concern when googling anything of importance though. It's kind of like when googling symptoms and one result says I have ball cancer and another says it's a migraine, etc.

I think this tracks pretty closely to age. No offense to the older demo on this site, and I know I am the minority, but I think it's unrealistic to think that google is going to give you a complete picture of a complicated and fast moving/changing topic like that of the vaccines made for COVID in 5 seconds. Any science worth following takes actual following and paying attention. I know I am part of the generation labeled with all the attention spans and "gimmie gimmie gimmie", but I think that spans generations and that's a huge problem. People don't take the time to process for themselves and learn about things. They often "outsource" that to someone/thing else. That's a problem.

Thanks for the advice. I'm pretty aware younger folks are often better with google.

I don't think anyone is trying to find a deep answer on a fast moving/changing topic like that of the vaccines made for COVID in 5 seconds. I saw a post that said no studies showed something and quickly googled to see what I could see. I shared a link and asked about it. I know it's fun to think old heads don't understand the googlemachine but you can probably save that one in this case.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Does anyone have a link to a study on when a joke is worth a FBGs timeout?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Does anyone have a link to a study on when a joke is worth a FBGs timeout?

No study I know of.

Lots of jokes. Occasionally, people get a suspension, but mods try to be careful there as dealing with the complaining for years is tiresome. Some now are sending emails making threats. In past, people have emailed that I better hope they never find my kids Not great but that's part of running this forum.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

Well, you're the one that lobbed the bad actors nonsense out there. I know a doctor that was suggesting Ivermectin for Covid. Was she right? I don't know I never took it or even considered it. But she's not a bad actor I can certainly say that.

But you seem hell bent that you're right and you're going to insist you're the only one that's right here.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

That's why I asked the question.

it wasn't (intentionally) false information from bad actors. it was just a flawed review that included now-withdrawn studies.

Thank you. Where do you see that?

When I see the study on. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

Pierre Kory 1,*, Gianfranco Umberto Meduri 2, Joseph Varon 3, Jose Iglesias 4, Paul E Marik 5

I see a few notes.

First is "See letter "Ivermectin, A Reanalysis of the Data" on page e579."

To the Editor:

Our article entitled “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19” was recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R1">1</a> Our article included randomized and observational trial meta-analyses on the efficacy of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Recently, the study conducted by Elgazzar et al<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415512/#R2">2</a> has come under scrutiny with accusations of scientific misconduct. His paper was apparently retracted without his knowledge and without giving him the opportunity to defend these serious claims. This situation is most unfortunate. While this issue is being resolved, we decided to redo the original meta-analyses excluding this study. The summary point estimates were largely unaffected when the study by Elgazzar et al was removed. The revised forest plots are provided below (Figures 1–3).

Secondly,

An expression of concern has been published for this article. See Am J Ther. 2022 Feb 14;29(2):e231.
The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021;28(3): e299–e318.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least one of the primary sources of the meta-analysis contained in the article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> These allegations were first made after the publication of this article.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a> The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to raise questions regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R2">2</a> Currently, the investigation of these allegations is incomplete and inconclusive.

This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Dr. Pierre Kory and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research.<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501341/#R1">1</a>

The American Journal of Therapeutics is steadfastly committed to upholding truth in science and the highest standards in publication ethics. We will update our decision regarding this work should more information become available.

And lastly,

This article has been corrected. See Am J Ther. 2023 Sep 28;28(6):e813.

In the article that appeared on pages e299–e318 in the May/June 2021 issue of American Journal of Therapeutics, the year mentioned in the following sentence should be 2021 rather than 2020: “As of February 21, 2020,<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501342/#R1">1</a> the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States reached 510,248 with more than 9.3 million active cases, the highest number to date.”

Is there something else that explains that this study was false and now withdrawn?

I think it's tough to blame Joe here. He found a study on google, and myself as well, after reading it, it's not exactly clear how to tell when a study has been followed up on and either proven otherwise or not. Makes me wonder what's what. And most people are only going to spend 5 seconds googling something. It's how google is supposed to work.

This is a concern when googling anything of importance though. It's kind of like when googling symptoms and one result says I have ball cancer and another says it's a migraine, etc.

I think this tracks pretty closely to age. No offense to the older demo on this site, and I know I am the minority, but I think it's unrealistic to think that google is going to give you a complete picture of a complicated and fast moving/changing topic like that of the vaccines made for COVID in 5 seconds. Any science worth following takes actual following and paying attention. I know I am part of the generation labeled with all the attention spans and "gimmie gimmie gimmie", but I think that spans generations and that's a huge problem. People don't take the time to process for themselves and learn about things. They often "outsource" that to someone/thing else. That's a problem.

Thanks for the advice. I'm pretty aware younger folks are often better with google.

I don't think anyone is trying to find a deep answer on a fast moving/changing topic like that of the vaccines made for COVID in 5 seconds. I saw a post that said no studies showed something and quickly googled to see what I could see. I shared a link and asked about it. I know it's fun to think old heads don't understand the googlemachine but you can probably save that one in this case.

My comments are from general observation, not specific to the individuals here and older folks aren't the only ones that settle for what I call "headline research" It's getting worse and worse unfortunately. That said the comment above should "no peer reviewed studies show...." which is 100% true

 

[TheAristocrat]

Does anyone have a link to a study on when a joke is worth a FBGs timeout?

No study I know of.

Lots of jokes. Occasionally, people get a suspension, but mods try to be careful there as dealing with the complaining for years is tiresome. Some now are sending emails making threats. In past, people have emailed that I better hope they never find my kids Not great but that's part of running this forum.

Next time, give me a timeout for being lame.

Just trying to bring a little levity but I'll scurry off to another thread. I didn't read the room.

Sorry you get threats. That sucks out loud.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Does anyone have a link to a study on when a joke is worth a FBGs timeout?

No study I know of.

Lots of jokes. Occasionally, people get a suspension, but mods try to be careful there as dealing with the complaining for years is tiresome. Some now are sending emails making threats. In past, people have emailed that I better hope they never find my kids Not great but that's part of running this forum.

Next time, give me a timeout for being lame.

Just trying to bring a little levity but I'll scurry off to another thread. I didn't read the room.

Sorry you get threats. That sucks out loud.

No worries. And not lame.

 

[turnjose7]

I most certainly did not run Lurker off and would be shocked if he reads through this conversation and feels I was one who treated him in any way that led to him leaving.

(In fact, the only even juvenile ribbing I gave to him was some good natured FBG humor at the end... he then showed he got the joke by leading off his last comment with the same joke although my own comment got deleted.)

You were cool man. I got the joke and shook my head . Lots of "my last post here" stuff. I kind of knew it wasn't after i posted it, but it was too late to delete in good faith. What are you gonna do.......

I'm going to leave you guys with this though. Helping was my intention, but this isn't the venue for the way I wanted to do that. It's ok, pretty normal reaction to what I've said. No ill will towards anyone regardless of how my time here ended.

Two tests, TAT (thrombin antithrombin) and a test to measure VEGF. @Sparky Polastri can confirm or refute these tests if he desires, that will carry more weight here than me. They can be ordered very simply by a pcp, or yourself through quest lab.

If you get covid, a covid vaccine and suspect something isn't right and all other tests are clear these could show irregularities if there's an issue related to clotting, or your vasculature in general. Best advice i can give and I'll get off my soap box and let everyone get back to having the discussion.

I'll leave things at that.

Why do you think these tests have any utility at all? Neither has a role in clinical medicine, probably because they aren't useful clinical tests. Seems like a bad idea to advocate for these over a well-established test with very well understood clinical significance like d-dimer.

I'll respond since you're talking to me directly

Rhetorical question, but what do you want me to say? You want me to go into an indepth answer? The way your question is phrased isn't to learn anything from me. It's to **** on me and take a victory lap if i tried.

I really don't have anything left to add. Don't get the tests, simple. I hope you're never in a position where it might matter.

I presumably won't be in a position where these tests matter because they don't have any clinical utility. What you could say is to explain the basis for why you think these tests should be used to make clinical decisions (which is presumably your position given that you used them to determine the should should be on medication, and are now advocating for other people to get these same tests). What are you basing that on?

Then consider yourself lucky.

I can't be anymore clear about my stance here going forward, so I'm not sure why you want to continue to engage with me.

I have no idea who you are and what your qualifications to make your claims are. I suspect you're no more qualified than I am. My doctors, regular pcp's at a regular family practice seemed to think they carried clinical value. It's a simple blood test and not harmful and should be interpreted by a doctor no matter how the test results are arrived at. Nobody is suggesting a diy approach to Healthcare.

Don't get the tests man. I really don't care your thoughts on that matter, so you don't need to reply or quote me. What more do you want me to say? I tagged sparky in the post as he's given his qualifications to make an assessment. If you want to have this conversation try him. He can shoot it down or give you the explanation you're trying to bait me into.

You are the one who advocated for people getting the tests, and you are the one who described taking a dangerous medication regimen based on these tests. You brought all of this up, not me. It isn't reasonable to expect people not to respond. Again, I'm sorry you have had a rough time and wish you the best. But what you are saying is dangerous misinformation and it would be irresponsible not to point that out. It isn't reasonable to post something, though, and then not expect people to respond.

My qualifications, if that is really important to you, include being a physician that has treated countless patients with both COVID and thromboembolism, working at an institution that has done extensive thromboembolism research, and having advanced training in evidence-based medicine which I taught for many years at our institution.

 

[turnjose7]

T

Why/how?... Because I also believe many of said deaths could also have been prevented if the same pyramid had not ignored and/or demonized existing and effective prophylactics such as vit C, D, Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors.

New study shows ivermectin lacks meaningful benefits in COVID-19 treatment — Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford

New research led by the University of Oxford has concluded that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not provide clinically meaningful benefits for treating COVID-19 in a largely vaccinated population.

www.phc.ox.ac.uk

Is this a thing where there are different studies?

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 - PMC

After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

Conclusions:​

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

I suspect by "It this a thing where there are different studies" you mean are there studies with conflicting results? There are, though the preponderance of high-quality evidence shows no benefit of ivermectin for COVID. It is pretty clear that ivermectin and the other treatments LawFitz suggested do not work. The manuscript you are referencing here is a narrative review (which in itself is a huge signal that it is trash given the fact that systematic reviews have been published on the same topic). Also, the senior author on this paper, Paul Marik, is a fraud who has had has board certification withdrawn for promoting misinformation and advocating for ineffective treatment for multiple conditions, not just COVID.

 

[turnjose7]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

No, I'm not.

You went well beyond "not beneficial". You wrote:

"All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

"This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors."

I spent 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

Maybe the site is bogus and the people at the site are indeed "bad actors". I don't know. But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

This is exactly the problem, Joe. You spent "5 seconds Googling", but didn't bother to spend enough time to thoroughly evaluate what you found. And that's exactly why false info needs to be repeatedly called out. Because anyone can post something untrue and it's impossible to debunk them all.

So you're saying this conclusion is "false info"?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
With this conclusion:

"Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

It's incorrect information drawing poor conclusions from a flawed approach to looking at the data. Others on here are being charitable by suggesting this was published early enough in the pandemic that people just didn't know. I guess that's possible but it is more likely that this article was designed to be intentionally deceiving. I don't know the other authors, but the senior author here is most definitely a bad actor.

 

[The Z Machine]

Long Covid is being looked at. PVS + links to the vaccines not so much, unless you count studies funded and/or conducted by Big Pharma, which has a very long and dubious history of obfuscating truth to protect profit.

What do you think the meaningful distinction is between "PVS" and long covid?

Again, the world is researching this stuff. Ignore if you wish. I gave you a link that has 7 or 8 under their single umbrella, but yeah, no one is looking at it except the people that are.

Post-Vaccination Syndrome

Do you understand that this is a very specific kind of person that is basically of "unicorn" status? To do this honestly, they need to find people who've been vaccinated and have NOT gotten COVID and they'd preferably doing it with people where this occurred within the last year.

This has always been the attempt, but it is very hard to find someone who's never had covid at this point.

To the best of my knowledge, neither my 81 year old MIL, nor my 11 year old son have had a covid infection. None have been confirmed via at home or lab based tests despite various illness over the last fe years, including lymphoma with my MIL. Both have received vaccines and boosters. Those people exist.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

BTW, in the last 18 mos, I've witnessed...

- My best friend's mom stoke and become a vegetable,

- My FIL and Uncle-in-law die from Turbo cancer.

All of them, heavily vaccinated, and two of them in very good health until 2021-22.

Closest anecdotes. I've so many more further around me. Condolences to any others of you who do as well.

I saw this thread and I tried to start this conversation back in 2021 but you couldn't talk about it here
As Joe said, the second you ask questions then you are Anti-Vax

Blood clots...Two different tennis friends, one of them had to have open heart surgery, the doctor was pulling blood clots out, the other in the lower legs
-If I could go back in time I would not have taken the vaccine, I agree with Bill Maher, took it but never again

-I have a Vax/Antivax story that rivals the "Tuna" and "Swedish Fish" incident, happened shortly after they opened the tennis courts back up around Florida, they were shut down Summer 2021
I'll save it for another post or thread but I have a lot more than just the vaccine to gripe about.

Good thread

 

[Sparky Polastri]

All these articles/studies are about the impacts of the virus. Stating the obvious, but if folks aren't reading the links, they may not realize.

 

[jhib]

I saw this thread and I tried to start this conversation back in 2021 but you couldn't talk about it here
As Joe said, the second you ask questions then you are Anti-Vax

Again, this is putting everyone who "asks questions" into the same category and I believe is a mischaracterization of what happens around here. I'm open to being shown where I'm mistaken, but I have never seen someone who just asks a few questions about vaccines on this forum be labeled as anti-vax. I have seen someone who makes repeated assertions under the pretense of just asking questions (whether in the multiple threads they have begun in that manner or in other threads where the topic is discussed), who has been either outright corrected or at least challenged (using suitable references) on why those assertions are misinformed but ignores that and keeps posting them, who is given the opportunity to backup those beliefs with references but ignores most such requests, whose stated beliefs are almost perfectly inline with the anti-vax movement's even though they claim to not be anti-vax, etc, etc, etc.... I have seen someone like that labeled as anti-vax here in this forum. But that's simply not the same thing as what you are suggesting above.

Of course, I'm not as involved as some on here, so I could have missed it. And I can't judge things that are deleted by moderators before most of us can see it. But I did see a lot of conversations on here about the topic and I've never noticed anyone being called anti-vax the second they ask questions.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

All these articles/studies are about the impacts of the virus. Stating the obvious, but if folks aren't reading the links, they may not realize.

Yes, almost all links are related to a natural covid infection, treatment/diagnostics cross between ofcourse. @Sparky Polastri is it safe to say for our purposes here that natural infection and vaccine reaction are similar enough as we've established with our conversation about exposure and spike protein potentially driving the illness?

I don't think so, no. Until they can show that the body's creation of the protein is different than introduction of the protein via the virus, you can't. Why do I believe this? Because if you are somehow able to isolate the two and compare them, the vaccine will provide a limited amount of instructions to create the protein thus providing a limited amount of spike proteins in the body. The virus will go unchecked and load become significantly larger than the vaccine ever could be AND it would have additional proteins exposed to the body that are part of the virus naturally. So now the body is fighting off a massive load and multiple proteins at the same time. That would cause much more damage/issues in most people.

This does NOT preclude there being situations where the immune system of an individual reacts poorly to the vaccine causing more protein creation than it should for "immune memory" if you will. That would be evidence of a bad immune response because something in the immune system went haywire and that is likely going to happen if that immune system faces off against the virus too.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I saw this thread and I tried to start this conversation back in 2021 but you couldn't talk about it here
As Joe said, the second you ask questions then you are Anti-Vax

Again, this is putting everyone who "asks questions" into the same category and I believe is a mischaracterization of what happens around here. I'm open to being shown where I'm mistaken, but I have never seen someone who just asks a few questions about vaccines on this forum be labeled as anti-vax. I have seen someone who makes repeated assertions under the pretense of just asking questions (whether in the multiple threads they have begun in that manner or in other threads where the topic is discussed), who has been either outright corrected or at least challenged (using suitable references) on why those assertions are misinformed but ignores that and keeps posting them, who is given the opportunity to backup those beliefs with references but ignores most such requests, whose stated beliefs are almost perfectly inline with the anti-vax movement's even though they claim to not be anti-vax, etc, etc, etc.... I have seen someone like that labeled as anti-vax here in this forum. But that's simply not the same thing as what you are suggesting above.

Of course, I'm not as involved as some on here, so I could have missed it. And I can't judge things that are deleted by moderators before most of us can see it. But I did see a lot of conversations on here about the topic and I've never noticed anyone being called anti-vax the second they ask questions.

I stand by my post, you are taken it a little too literal but when you read Joe's post, it struck a note with me and I didn't think @Joe Bryant was just talking about the FBG board
Real World vs the forums is how I would describe a lot of it.

I can dig some of the posts up but nobody wanted to hear about my tennis buds experiencing blood clots

-We also used to have people post that they wore masks 24/7 and didn't mind wearing them the rest of their lives
This group(FBG) also claims to return their grocery shopping carts back to the front door about 98% of the time
@Keerock thread that was the funniest thing I've ever seen here

I'm trying to keep it light jhib
Thanks

 

[The Z Machine]

Would they be willing to be part of clinical trials? That's the other hang up.

I'm sure my MIL would. I'd probably let my son do it too, depending on the protocol.

 

[jhib]

I stand by my post, you are taken it a little too literal but when you read Joe's post, it struck a note with me and I didn't think @Joe Bryant was just talking about the FBG board
Real World vs the forums is how I would describe a lot of it.

And what I am reacting to in both Joe's and your posts is that they imply you aren't just talking about the Real World, but also what happens on these forums, and I just haven't seen it on these forums.

I'm a little sensitive to it because I think it's a dangerous idea encouraged by the anti-vax movement - the idea that "those mean people on the other side are unreasonable and will label you as anti-vax even if you just have some honest questions about vaccines." Of course, having some questions about vaccines is a completely reasonable thing, so it's a successful tactic that otherwise reasonable people fall victim to.

And I'm not saying it never happens that someone will react to a vaccine hesitant kind of question by suggesting the person posing it is anti-vax, but I think that is the exception rather than the norm (as you both seem to suggest) and I've never seen it here.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I stand by my post, you are taken it a little too literal but when you read Joe's post, it struck a note with me and I didn't think @Joe Bryant was just talking about the FBG board
Real World vs the forums is how I would describe a lot of it.

And what I am reacting to in both Joe's and your posts is that they imply you aren't just talking about the Real World, but also what happens on these forums, and I just haven't seen it on these forums.

I'm a little sensitive to it because I think it's a dangerous idea encouraged by the anti-vax movement - the idea that "those mean people on the other side are unreasonable and will label you as anti-vax even if you just have some honest questions about vaccines." Of course, having some questions about vaccines is a completely reasonable thing, so it's a successful tactic that otherwise reasonable people fall victim to.

And I'm not saying it never happens that someone will react to a vaccine hesitant kind of question by suggesting the person posing it is anti-vax, but I think that is the exception rather than the norm (as you both seem to suggest) and I've never seen it here.

Why are you so sensitive?
Didn't you just prove what Joe is saying on page 1?

Maybe you could stop being sensitive for a minute and accept the POV that someone is sharing.
It does not mean that you agree with them which you've made clear and I certainly accept your viewpoint

You start talking about "dangerous idea" and that sounds more like trying to shut down anyone that posts exactly what JB did
I'm sorry you can't see it that way.

 

[jhib]

I stand by my post, you are taken it a little too literal but when you read Joe's post, it struck a note with me and I didn't think @Joe Bryant was just talking about the FBG board
Real World vs the forums is how I would describe a lot of it.

And what I am reacting to in both Joe's and your posts is that they imply you aren't just talking about the Real World, but also what happens on these forums, and I just haven't seen it on these forums.

I'm a little sensitive to it because I think it's a dangerous idea encouraged by the anti-vax movement - the idea that "those mean people on the other side are unreasonable and will label you as anti-vax even if you just have some honest questions about vaccines." Of course, having some questions about vaccines is a completely reasonable thing, so it's a successful tactic that otherwise reasonable people fall victim to.

And I'm not saying it never happens that someone will react to a vaccine hesitant kind of question by suggesting the person posing it is anti-vax, but I think that is the exception rather than the norm (as you both seem to suggest) and I've never seen it here.

Why are you so sensitive?
Didn't you just prove what Joe is saying on page 1?

Maybe you could stop being sensitive for a minute and accept the POV that someone is sharing.
It does not mean that you agree with them which you've made clear and I certainly accept your viewpoint

You start talking about "dangerous idea" and that sounds more like trying to shut down anyone that posts exactly what JB did
I'm sorry you can't see it that way.

Sensitive? I just explained why am sensitive to it. Sensitive in the sense that I notice it when that mischaracterization happens. If you are implying instead by sensitive that I am reacting emotionally towards it, I can assure you that I'm not. In fact, I think this whole topic has too much emotion and "feeling" - what people "believe" and "feel" is happening instead of what science and data suggest is happening.

Of course I am open to other POVs. I think it's appropriate in a discussion to challenge POVs you disagree with or that you feel are unfairly mischaracterizing (either outright or by implication, intentional or not) what is happening. You disagree with that?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Of course, I'm not as involved as some on here, so I could have missed it. And I can't judge things that are deleted by moderators before most of us can see it. But I did see a lot of conversations on here about the topic and I've never noticed anyone being called anti-vax the second they ask questions.

Correct. There's a lot of posts that most people don't see.

One of the first posts in this thread was "Antivax conspiracy nuts feel emboldened now I guess".

It was removed.

It's been my experience on our forums and in the rest of the world that people who question vaccines are often labeled "anti-vaxxers" in order to denigrate or dismiss them. That's hardly a hot take.

In the same way, as happened here, people can also be smeared who are pro vaccine and called "boot lickers" or other things.

As I said earlier, I don't think either labels are helpful and I'd rather the focus be on discussion and not diminishing either side with perjorative labels.

 

[jhib]

One of the first posts in this thread was "Antivax conspiracy nuts feel emboldened now I guess".

Do you feel that was in response to someone "just asking questions?"

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I REALLY hate this narrative that people here can't/don't distinguish between the people asking questions and the people posting already debunked and flat out incorrect information. This is a pretty smart group collectively.

 

[turnjose7]

Thanks.

Sounds like you have answered your own question then. Qualifications are always a plus. I gave mine and now you gave yours. It's obvious nothing I say will be good enough, but my medical team ran into a brick wall and these tests showed irregularities along with tests and labs i received from researchers I've already discussed. I can't make people here believe me and have stopped trying and why i wanted to drop this and continue to have the conversation here, but from a little farther out. Lots of smart people here and I'm learning a lot.

And again I had a novel disease (reaction to spike protein), not totally unlike Lyme or ME/CFS. As you know in your training (or maybe not, I'm making an assumption) the symptoms to these diseases are real, but the diagnostics are still unclear as to why the body reacts how it does and what drives the long term symptoms. The standard bloods are clear for most people with the above diseases and long covid is no different. Now if you don't believe in Lyme, ME/CFS, and long covid then we have to be done here because we're not even in the same universe.

Is it really so hard to believe a team of medical professionals could think outside the box to try and help a patient that's suffering? I mean my doctors found a clinical use for the tests in my case and I'll only speak for myself, maybe for other people and in your opinion they are of no consequence. I can accept that. Second opinions exist for a reason.

Let me ask you this. Do you think the research you're aware of into long covid is sufficient? Do you have other tests you'd recommend (d-dimer was in range)? What was i supposed to do, lay on the floor in the fetal position waiting for a phone call with the answers to my problems?

I won't go back into the treatment (just quickly, i was on the treatment for 5 months total, weaned off, and have been completely off any medications for the last 1.5 years), which did work, but it wasn't something i took lightly and took 3 months to get the courage to try it. I worked with researchers at a prestigious institution aswell as my doctors locally. It was a team effort with professionals and i was monitored closely. These tests weren't the determining factor, but they were clues.

That's as much as i want to talk about that here and i hope this is good enough for you. I really don't want to have this conversation. It became clear i was triggering people with my story and i just wanted to leave a couple very easy tests as an idea for anyone struggling to find answers if they find themselves in the same situation. Sorry if you think I've harmed anyone in suggesting a painless blood test their doctors would interpret. I have stopped giving that kind of advice and will keep personal details private. Best i can do at this point. I have good intentions as someone that lived it and i really do understand the apprehension, especially from heathcare professionals but i needed to get better and i took a risk. It's easy to be critical from the outside looking in. We can re-litigate this again tomorrow morning if you'd like, but this is the best answer I'm comfortable giving.

I believe you mean well, but you're not a long covid researcher and I'm presuming you have no experience treating patients that are suffering from it. I'll defer to my team over internet advice with all due respect.

Edit to ask a question: I'll ask a question about my personal experience since you're insisting I expand and my TAT test in particular since this is your area of expertise. What do you make of my TAT score being >60 on a quest lab diagnostic test when the reference range ends at 60. My use of the therapy that will not be mentioned (Eloquis in particular was explained to me. I only say this one drug to help you give a better informed answer) lowered this (along with other markers they identified) and at the same time i began to heal.

Edit 2 electric boogaloo. As a show of good faith if you (or anyone else here for that matter) can identify posts i made that i didn't sufficiently source, didn't make clear were my opinion, or you feel is dangerous misinformation make a list of the post numbers and report them. @Joe Bryant or moderation can delete them, or ask me to do it and I will. No questions asked, no complaining on my end. I'm telling my story as it happened and what i experienced finding treatment. It's pretty upsetting to quite a few people here and it's the same irl, so nothing new. I won't fight it. I didn't personally work with Dr David Putrino at Mt Sinai, but he may have the clout and answers for you if you were to email him (or his team) if you would truly like to learn more about what I'm talking about from a medical researcher looking into the clotting irregularities with long covid. If he refutes that microclotting is something they've found and that a d-dimer is sufficient in their research I will stand corrected, accept my beatdown and highly appreciate the correction.

This is a really long post and I don't think I have time to reply to every point in detail, but to respond to the general gist of what you are saying, I think that long COVID, chronic Lyme disease (I assume that is what you mean as acute Lyme disease is obviously a well understood condition), and chronic fatigue syndrome are all conditions that warrant further research. I suspect that all are on a spectrum of conditions with potential organic causes that are not yet well understood and causes that are inorganic, and for any individual patient there are likely different ratios of those two. The distinction for the patient obviously doesn't matter and we should do what we can to help them regardless, provided it is sound and safe medicine. Within the confines of close monitoring or in a research setting this might include using some treatments in a novel way when there is a sound physiologic basis. I won't comment on whether I think that was the case for you or not, but you have certainly done what you can to portray that it was the case for you, and that's fine.

And certainly sharing your experience is something that you have every right to do. What is not ok and moves into the realm of being irresponsible, is advocating for other people to get a test that you don't have the background knowledge to recommend (which you don't, no matter how much you have "researched" it) and which is not an accepted test for what you are describing. You may think it is "painless," but there aren't any tests that exist without any negative consequences. This is particularly true when tied to a high-risk treatment as you already did with this particular test.

In regards to your first edit, I don't make anything of it. It does nothing to suggest that clotting was a cause of your symptoms. And with respect to the article you linked, it is garbage. The authors draw many unsubstantiated conclusions. At best the paper shows there is a mild association for people who are admitted with COVID having an elevation in this particular lab test (though even that is a little sketchy as the details about these patients, why they were admitted, how sick they were, what comorbidities they had, etc. are less than ideal). It certainly doesn't imply that clots are having any physiologic effect, though the authors try to say it does. If I had reviewed the paper it would have been torn to shreds.