ciccio bellico
Pane al pane e vino al vino
Un bel modello di business sarebbe pubblicare fake su un sito e il loro debunking su un altro, entrambi infarciti di pubblicità e richieste di contributi per portare avanti le contrapposte missioni. 
Vaccino (no fakes & novax)
- Creatore Discussione lincoln
- Data di Inizio
- Stato
ciccio bellico
Pane al pane e vino al vino
Quindi con l'uovo di Remuzzi il problema covid si avvia a soluzione.
Cura riconosciuta anche ufficialmente, pubblicata con grande risalto persino dagli organi di stampa del regime quali La Repubblichella e Il Corrierino della Sega.
Dovremmo quindi assistere a breve al quasi azzeramento dei ricoveri causa covid, e una volta dimesse dagli ospedali le ultime vittime della tachipirina e vigile attesa, il covid sarà solo un brutto ricordo.
Cura riconosciuta anche ufficialmente, pubblicata con grande risalto persino dagli organi di stampa del regime quali La Repubblichella e Il Corrierino della Sega.
Dovremmo quindi assistere a breve al quasi azzeramento dei ricoveri causa covid, e una volta dimesse dagli ospedali le ultime vittime della tachipirina e vigile attesa, il covid sarà solo un brutto ricordo.
superciuk1
La verità e' come voi prima o poi viene a galla
autobiografico
ciccio bellico
Pane al pane e vino al vino
Incontinenti. 
grigione
notorius
Ma anche sì, se viene a meno il gas, l'incontinenza scaldaIncontinenti.
superb@ffone
Forest Gann
per avere efficacia richiederebbe dosi 100 volte superiori a quelle approvate per uso umano, e poi sono i vaccini quelli pericolosi
Ivermectin | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
Review clinical data on the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.
www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov
Ultima modifica:
ciccio bellico
Pane al pane e vino al vino
Se loro sono felici così, visto che il covid non è più un'emergenza, potevi anche lasciargli credere che l'ivermectina funzionava.
E' come voler convincere a tutti i costi un bambino che Babbo Natale non esiste.
Una inutile crudeltà.
superb@ffone
Forest Gann
Le motivazioni…
Rationale
The results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Most of these studies, especially studies completed earlier in the pandemic, had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which made excluding common causes of bias difficult. Many of these studies have not been peer reviewed, and some have now been retracted.
The Panel’s recommendation is primarily informed by recently published randomized controlled trials.17-20 The primary outcomes of these trials showed that the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 had no clinical benefit. In TOGETHER, an adaptive platform trial conducted in Brazil, there was no apparent difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms for the primary outcome of risk of emergency department visits or hospitalization (14.7% vs. 16.4%). Also, there was no statistically significant difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms in mortality (3.1% vs. 3.5%).
I-TECH, an open-label trial conducted in Malaysia, found no difference between the ivermectin and standard of care arms (21.6% vs. 17.3%) for the primary outcome of risk of progression to severe disease. The ivermectin arm had a lower risk of mortality than the standard of care arm (1.2% vs. 4.0%), but this difference was not statistically significant.
The study populations of both the TOGETHER and I-TECH trials were patients with mild to moderate disease, and the number of deaths was low (as expected). In these randomized trials, completely excluding an effect of ivermectin is difficult, because the trials were not powered to detect differences in secondary outcomes, such as death. However, data from these trials do not provide evidence that the use of ivermectin benefited the treatment of COVID-19.
Comparisons of the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 are complicated by the large variability of doses and durations of treatment used in the studies. There have been concerns that doses in early trials were too low and durations of treatment were too short. However, the higher doses (300 μg/kg–400 μg/kg per day for up to 3–5 days) used in the more recent TOGETHER and I-TECH trials did not demonstrate clinical benefit.
Although there have been many ivermectin studies, only a few trials have been adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted. More recent clinical trials address the limitations of earlier studies but fail to show clear evidence that ivermectin reduces time to recovery or prevents COVID-19 disease progression. For this reason, and because several medications now have demonstrated clinical benefit for the treatment of COVID-19, the Panel recommends against the use of ivermectinfor the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIIa). Additional adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted trials are needed to evaluate the effect of ivermectin on COVID-19. The Panel will continue to review emerging data on ivermectin use, including the results from 2 large, ongoing randomized controlled trials.
Rationale
The results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Most of these studies, especially studies completed earlier in the pandemic, had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which made excluding common causes of bias difficult. Many of these studies have not been peer reviewed, and some have now been retracted.
The Panel’s recommendation is primarily informed by recently published randomized controlled trials.17-20 The primary outcomes of these trials showed that the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 had no clinical benefit. In TOGETHER, an adaptive platform trial conducted in Brazil, there was no apparent difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms for the primary outcome of risk of emergency department visits or hospitalization (14.7% vs. 16.4%). Also, there was no statistically significant difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms in mortality (3.1% vs. 3.5%).
I-TECH, an open-label trial conducted in Malaysia, found no difference between the ivermectin and standard of care arms (21.6% vs. 17.3%) for the primary outcome of risk of progression to severe disease. The ivermectin arm had a lower risk of mortality than the standard of care arm (1.2% vs. 4.0%), but this difference was not statistically significant.
The study populations of both the TOGETHER and I-TECH trials were patients with mild to moderate disease, and the number of deaths was low (as expected). In these randomized trials, completely excluding an effect of ivermectin is difficult, because the trials were not powered to detect differences in secondary outcomes, such as death. However, data from these trials do not provide evidence that the use of ivermectin benefited the treatment of COVID-19.
Comparisons of the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 are complicated by the large variability of doses and durations of treatment used in the studies. There have been concerns that doses in early trials were too low and durations of treatment were too short. However, the higher doses (300 μg/kg–400 μg/kg per day for up to 3–5 days) used in the more recent TOGETHER and I-TECH trials did not demonstrate clinical benefit.
Although there have been many ivermectin studies, only a few trials have been adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted. More recent clinical trials address the limitations of earlier studies but fail to show clear evidence that ivermectin reduces time to recovery or prevents COVID-19 disease progression. For this reason, and because several medications now have demonstrated clinical benefit for the treatment of COVID-19, the Panel recommends against the use of ivermectinfor the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIIa). Additional adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted trials are needed to evaluate the effect of ivermectin on COVID-19. The Panel will continue to review emerging data on ivermectin use, including the results from 2 large, ongoing randomized controlled trials.
superb@ffone
Forest Gann
Recommend against:
sconsigliano
raccomandano di non
sconsigliano
raccomandano di non
superb@ffone
Forest Gann
Recommend against:
sconsigliano
raccomandano di non
sconsigliano
raccomandano di non
- Stato
Similar threads
