cardarine and covid vaccine

simwe9one

New member
Awards
0
Hi everybody, I hope this is the right space , I'm doing a cycle with cardarine 12.5mg daily , cycle end 25 august, I will do covid vaccine 10 september, is enough time to stop cardarine before vaccine or should wait more?
and cardarine can be dangerous with covid vaccine?
thanks in advance for all answer
 
nikosktm

nikosktm

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
i did my covid vaccine( 2 doses) while on arimistane/epiandro/yohimbine stack. no problems... at 8 oclock did my vaccine dose at 10 i took epiandro lol .
 
cheftepesh1

cheftepesh1

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I don’t see where there would be concern, but if you are ask a medical professional.
 

johnsar

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Hi everybody, I hope this is the right space , I'm doing a cycle with cardarine 12.5mg daily , cycle end 25 august, I will do covid vaccine 10 september, is enough time to stop cardarine before vaccine or should wait more?
and cardarine can be dangerous with covid vaccine?
thanks in advance for all answer
I would rethink getting the vaccine at all. Many people dying and having repercussions from it.
Its not FDA approved. The animals used in the trials died,, so they just moved on to humans
God forbid you die. Your family doesn't collect on your life insurance because you are a test subject.
Not to mention it does nothing to stop you from getting this deadly flu.
Please dont get it.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I would rethink getting the vaccine at all. Many people dying and having repercussions from it.
Its not FDA approved. The animals used in the trials died,, so they just moved on to humans
God forbid you die. Your family doesn't collect on your life insurance because you are a test subject.
Not to mention it does nothing to stop you from getting this deadly flu.
Please dont get it.
the fda has classified vaccines as experimental drugs.
 

simwe9one

New member
Awards
0
you are literally a test subject... I doubt there is much data on this subject, if any at all. GL
I dont think so, only in u.s have been vaccinated 160 million of people with 2 doses, at least one of this got cardarine, I think.
 
MadStax

MadStax

Active member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • RockStar
I would rethink getting the vaccine at all. Many people dying and having repercussions from it.
Its not FDA approved. The animals used in the trials died,, so they just moved on to humans
God forbid you die. Your family doesn't collect on your life insurance because you are a test subject.
Not to mention it does nothing to stop you from getting this deadly flu.
Please dont get it.
This is the dumbest $hit I've ever read on these forums and I've seen my share. What crackpot, backwards a$$ news source are you using for this ridiculousness?

Literally complete garbage except for the half truth of it not preventing your contraction of the virus. However, it definitely does prevent symptoms and keeps you from dying. So, probs worth it to be "a test subject". I personally don't like dying much.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
This is the dumbest $hit I've ever read on these forums and I've seen my share. What crackpot, backwards a$$ news source are you using for this ridiculousness?

Literally complete garbage except for the half truth of it not preventing your contraction of the virus. However, it definitely does prevent symptoms and keeps you from dying. So, probs worth it to be "a test subject". I personally don't like dying much.
getting covid does not mean you are going to die or get severe symptoms even if you don't get vaccinated!!!

only 1 in 6 get severe symptoms from covid and the vast majority are in high risk groups-elderly, obese, diabetes or heart disease.
 
MadStax

MadStax

Active member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • RockStar
getting covid does not mean you are going to die or get severe symptoms even if you don't get vaccinated!!!

only 1 in 6 get severe symptoms from covid and the vast majority are in high risk groups-elderly, obese, diabetes or heart disease.
I'm aware. I got it back in August and had basically no symptoms. My partner was very sick and had symptoms for months. She still hasn't fully recovered her lung capacity.
 
JellyJesus

JellyJesus

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
I would rethink getting the vaccine at all. Many people dying and having repercussions from it.
Its not FDA approved. The animals used in the trials died,, so they just moved on to humans
God forbid you die. Your family doesn't collect on your life insurance because you are a test subject.
Not to mention it does nothing to stop you from getting this deadly flu.
Please dont get it.
People like you should be charged with manslaughter.
 
JellyJesus

JellyJesus

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
for voicing a opinion on a bodybuilding site-damn, you should move to iran!!!
An opinion that will likely kill your grandma lol… not here to argue but if you can’t agree his statements are complete and utter nonsense, please please consider doing some research.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
An opinion that will likely kill your grandma lol… not here to argue but if you can’t agree his statements are complete and utter nonsense, please please consider doing some research.
speaking of utter nonsense, his voicing a opinion is not going to kill anyone.
the 1st amendment is cornerstone to our freedom, if you deny people the right to opposing viewpoints we are on a very slippery slope.

one of the things i used to hear a lot when i was in the military was--'i might not agree with you, but i will defend with my life your right to say it'.
 
MadStax

MadStax

Active member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • RockStar
If he was on here saying "ZOMG testosterone kills, everyone dies from it and it'll make your rape your grandpa." Everyone would be down his throat with facts.
 
MadStax

MadStax

Active member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • RockStar
speaking of utter nonsense, his voicing a opinion is not going to kill anyone.
the 1st amendment is cornerstone to our freedom, if you deny people the right to opposing viewpoints we are on a very slippery slope.

one of the things i used to hear a lot when i was in the military was--'i might not agree with you, but i will defend with my life your right to say it'.
Put your first amendment bullshit away, bud. I respect you, but you're way out of line here! He was definitely not sharing an opinion. He's spreading false news and propaganda.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Put your first amendment bullshit away, bud. I respect you, but you're way out of line here! He was definitely not sharing an opinion. He's spreading false news and propaganda.
there is so much propaganda coming from both sides these days it's hard to know what is truth and what is propaganda....but one thing i do know is that the 1st amendment is not bullshyt.
 
JellyJesus

JellyJesus

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
there is so much propaganda coming from both sides these days it's hard to know what is truth and what is propaganda....but one thing i do know is that the 1st amendment is not bullshyt.
Then stop getting your info from “both sides” and get it from scientists and studied professionals. No one is saying the 1st amendment is bullshit, but using it to protect narratives that have been proven to cause deaths is. Read up.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Then stop getting your info from “both sides” and get it from scientists and studied professionals. No one is saying the 1st amendment is bullshit, but using it to protect narratives that have been proven to cause deaths is. Read up.
lol...as if scientists and professionals don't disagree.

out of time...have a nice day!!!
 
BCseacow83

BCseacow83

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Put your first amendment bullshit away, bud. I respect you, but you're way out of line here! He was definitely not sharing an opinion. He's spreading false news and propaganda.
Anyone that CHOOSES to not get a vaccine based on some random anon. persons post on a message board called anabolicminds has bigger issues. I'll put my 1st amed. BS away as soon as you put your brown shirt and jack boots away. lol.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Shameful nonsense in here people not being able to have a discussion without attacking others. I find it funny people talking about not FDA approved like it should hold weight when especially in our community as supplement buyers we hate the FDA, and especially considering this is a site that is sponsored by Research Chem companies and has an anabolics section...

The only people I know of who like the FDA or think they are doing a good job is big pharma. Many useful medications used worldwide are not used here because they are not lucrative to big pharma.

Be a little nicer to people in general guys, we have more in common than we have separating us. People just tend to get stuck on that 20% we disagree on...
 
xR1pp3Rx

xR1pp3Rx

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
knowing what we do know about the vaccine, i cant believe anyone here is recommending it to gear heads. has any of you done any research?. perhaps those doing so should be held responsible for manslaughter. thats right, using your BS tactic you are now at fault for the deaths of hundreds of anabolic minds. see how that works?
 
xR1pp3Rx

xR1pp3Rx

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
you are literally telling a bunch of men with blood thicker than motor sludge to take a vaccine known to cause clotting problems.. WTG!!!
 
Last edited:
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Lol, no.

I am not sure what this article is supposed to prove or disprove being posted here. All this seems to imply is it is likely a pre-existing issue that is triggered by the vaccination, and now they know how it acts on the blood afterwards which may help in treatment. However it doesn't change the fact that there is no test to take before the shot to find out if you are one of the lucky few.

I am vaxxed, but I honestly don't get why people who are vaxxed get so dang worried about what unvaxxed people do. Especially with the new variant infects tons of vaxxed people as well, and they can pass it on just as well as unvaxxed people. Granted they are not hospitalized anywhere near as much as unvaxxed people. However again, that is their risk to take with their body. You do what you need to do for you and your body, let Grandma and Grandpa do what is right for them and their body or belief system and move on happy that we live in a country that we have the choice.
 
MadStax

MadStax

Active member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • RockStar
I am not sure what this article is supposed to prove or disprove being posted here. All this seems to imply is it is likely a pre-existing issue that is triggered by the vaccination, and now they know how it acts on the blood afterwards which may help in treatment. However it doesn't change the fact that there is no test to take before the shot to find out if you are one of the lucky few.

I am vaxxed, but I honestly don't get why people who are vaxxed get so dang worried about what unvaxxed people do. Especially with the new variant infects tons of vaxxed people as well, and they can pass it on just as well as unvaxxed people. Granted they are not hospitalized anywhere near as much as unvaxxed people. However again, that is their risk to take with their body. You do what you need to do for you and your body, let Grandma and Grandpa do what is right for them and their body or belief system and move on happy that we live in a country that we have the choice.
Proving that AZ (which isn't used in the USA) and J&J (which isn't very effective anyway and is rarely administered in the USA) are the only ones causing the clots and they are extremely rare. Also, how thick your blood is doesn't really come into play on whether it clots or not.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Proving that AZ (which isn't used in the USA) and J&J (which isn't very effective anyway and is rarely administered in the USA) are the only ones causing the clots and they are extremely rare. Also, how thick your blood is doesn't really come into play on whether it clots or not.
Okay I see the validity in that based on the challenge statement. However, the Johnson and Johnson is being used here in America without restriction as far as I know. More people avoid due to the bad press and probably for good reason, but I don't think it is less due to being governed.

I also think he may have been intentionally making a jump to a conclusion to prove a point regarding the statements about someone being charged with a crime for recommending against the vaccine, and you took the bait.
 
xR1pp3Rx

xR1pp3Rx

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Right, same research... Pfizer and Moderna do not cause clotting...
apparently you failed to read the non WSJ article. IMO the same study says far worse things than your article says it does.
 
xR1pp3Rx

xR1pp3Rx

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I also think he may have been intentionally making a jump to a conclusion to prove a point regarding the statements about someone being charged with a crime for recommending against the vaccine, and you took the bait.
indeed. but that doesnt mean I will get the jab until me DR. says its safe.
 
JellyJesus

JellyJesus

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Pushing a false narrative that has been proven to be false, and doing so using completely false information, that can lead to not only
Himself but others being in danger, is moronic. Ask your doctor, I bet if anything he questions your motive to use research chemicals and not a vaccine that can save you and your fellow neighbor. I don’t give a **** if any of you get vaccinated, just don’t push bullshit information to cause someone else to not get it and possibly harm themselves.
 
xR1pp3Rx

xR1pp3Rx

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Pushing a false narrative that has been proven to be false, and doing so using completely false information, that can lead to not only
Himself but others being in danger, is moronic. Ask your doctor, I bet if anything he questions your motive to use research chemicals and not a vaccine that can save you and your fellow neighbor. I don’t give a **** if any of you get vaccinated, just don’t push bullshit information to cause someone else to not get it and possibly harm themselves.
who are you white knighting for?
are you on hold with the narc on your neighbor hotline?
you say your dr. questions your motive to use RC's... but did you?
how many times you have recommended cardarine? :ROFLMAO::poop:
 
JellyJesus

JellyJesus

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
who are you white knighting for?
are you on hold with the narc on your neighbor hotline?
you say your dr. questions your motive to use RC's... but did you?
how many times you have recommended cardarine? :ROFLMAO::poop:
What are you even talking about?? I’m strictly replying to the person who decided to use 4 completely inaccurate responses for a reason to not get the vaccine.. Like I said I don’t care if you or anyone else gets it, I have mine and I’ll be ok. My only point is to not sway someone one way or the other with nonsensical information. I didn’t say my doctor questions anything and I’ve never even used a RC… can you read?
 
JellyJesus

JellyJesus

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
who are you white knighting for?
are you on hold with the narc on your neighbor hotline?
you say your dr. questions your motive to use RC's... but did you?
how many times you have recommended cardarine? :ROFLMAO::poop:
What are you even talking about?? I’m strictly replying to the person who decided to use 4 completely inaccurate responses for a reason to not get the vaccine.. Like I said I don’t care if you or anyone else gets it, I have mine and I’ll be ok. My only point is to not sway someone one way or the other with nonsensical information. I didn’t say my doctor questions anything and I’ve never even used a RC… can you read?
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
online anti-vax campaigns and covid 19: censorship is not the answer.

even the national institute of health opposes censorship. this is not false narrative!!!
 
MadStax

MadStax

Active member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • RockStar
online anti-vax campaigns and covid 19: censorship is not the answer.

even the national institute of health opposes censorship. this is not false narrative!!!
Having discussions amongst experts with strong backgrounds in applicable sciences is definitely a great thing! That is, of course, what science is all about. Intentionally using fear mongering to attempt to sway someone from getting a vaccine that has and will save countless lives is not acceptable. Calling that person out and holding them accountable is not censorship.
 
JellyJesus

JellyJesus

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Having discussions amongst experts with strong backgrounds in applicable sciences is definitely a great thing! That is, of course, what science is all about. Intentionally using fear mongering to attempt to sway someone from getting a vaccine that has and will save countless lives is not acceptable. Calling that person out and holding them accountable is not censorship.
^
 
Whisky

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
I think both sides to the vaccine debate need to acknowledge there is two sides to the debate…….

no one knows ‘the truth’ for sure. All we can do is each make our own decision based on what we feel to be right for us.

I was pleased my parents and in laws got the vaccine. In my opinion for those who are in the higher risk of death/serious illness categories it’s probably the right move.

I personally have decided not to get it. I am using ivermectin to try and further off set the small risk covid may present to me and the lack of long term (my subjective view would be 5+ years as long term) safety data (which obviously needs something to be used ‘long term’ to produce) make it a concern.

clearly the spread of known falsehoods or absolute statements from both sides isn’t helpful though. In the same way that the pro vaccine argument can’t state with certainty the vaccines are long term safe, the anti vaccine argument shouldn’t be stating that ‘many’ people are dying etc (without defining many).
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I think both sides to the vaccine debate need to acknowledge there is two sides to the debate…….

no one knows ‘the truth’ for sure. All we can do is each make our own decision based on what we feel to be right for us.

I was pleased my parents and in laws got the vaccine. In my opinion for those who are in the higher risk of death/serious illness categories it’s probably the right move.

I personally have decided not to get it. I am using ivermectin to try and further off set the small risk covid may present to me and the lack of long term (my subjective view would be 5+ years as long term) safety data (which obviously needs something to be used ‘long term’ to produce) make it a concern.

clearly the spread of known falsehoods or absolute statements from both sides isn’t helpful though. In the same way that the pro vaccine argument can’t state with certainty the vaccines are long term safe, the anti vaccine argument shouldn’t be stating that ‘many’ people are dying etc (without defining many).
as ridiculous as i agree that the post that sparked emotions to run high was, if we start censoring comments and opinions where does it end?...i think a more rational way to debate this would be if someone posts something that anyone thinks is false they should post rebuttal evidence...instead of letting emotions run high calm and reason should rule the day, imo.

civility and respectfulness is sadly in short supply today---along with common sense.
 

mavup

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
I think both sides to the vaccine debate need to acknowledge there is two sides to the debate…….

no one knows ‘the truth’ for sure. All we can do is each make our own decision based on what we feel to be right for us.

I was pleased my parents and in laws got the vaccine. In my opinion for those who are in the higher risk of death/serious illness categories it’s probably the right move.

I personally have decided not to get it. I am using ivermectin to try and further off set the small risk covid may present to me and the lack of long term (my subjective view would be 5+ years as long term) safety data (which obviously needs something to be used ‘long term’ to produce) make it a concern.

clearly the spread of known falsehoods or absolute statements from both sides isn’t helpful though. In the same way that the pro vaccine argument can’t state with certainty the vaccines are long term safe, the anti vaccine argument shouldn’t be stating that ‘many’ people are dying etc (without defining many).
This is a genuine question, but why are you using ivermectin, then? The concentration at which it displayed anti-viral effects is achieved by 100x the anti-parasitic dose, and the anti-parasitic dose is where the safety data is coming from. Further, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 (in vitro) research was on Vero E6 cells at 5 μM, and when human primary air way epithelium was used, ivermectin failed to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection, even at 10 μM.

So, you’re either taking a dose that would never reach the concentration necessary to inhibit viral infection, or you’re using a dose that far exceeds the safety data, and it’s still very likely not doing anything at that concentration. This is also evidenced by the myriad of trials on ivermectin, where all the positive results come from small studies with shoddy design, and one of the large, randomized control trials that was a preprint, never peer-reviewed/nor published, was just retracted because they cooked the data. That’s this one, btw: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v4

sadly, that pre-print was cited in over 30 studies on ivermectin, and represented the strongest evidence in favor of ivermectin - it was the largest trial to date. Here’s a good breakdown of all the evidence supporting the notion the data was cooked/methods were faulty

One can even (others have done it, I haven’t) rerun all the statistics of meta-analyses with and without that study and other poorly designed trials, and any incidence of benefit/positive association with ivermectin treatment is lost.

Here’s a meta-analysis on ivermectin RCTs: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839

“In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.”

Further evidence here: https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

“An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 5 µM required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro,17 which is much higher than 0.28 µM, the maximum reported plasma concentration achieved in vivo with a dose of approximately 1700 µg/kg (about nine times the FDA-approved dosification).24 25 In this sense, basic fundamentals for assessing ivermectin in COVID-19 at a clinical level appear to be insufficient.”

“Nevertheless, assessments of ivermectin as prophylaxis or treatment for mild to severe COVID-19 continue being published in preprints26 27 and protocol repositories,28 29 which do not follow the recommended process to ensure quality standards in publications; whereas peer-reviewed reports (both observational and experimental studies) are slowly emerging, yet methodologically limited by heterogeneity in population receiving ivermectin, dosis applied and uncontrolled cointerventions.”

“Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow.37–39 The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials.”

Again I’m genuinely just curious, but based on that, it seems unreasonable to take ivermectin outside of a clinical trial, since it has questionable efficacy, and at the doses it might work, safety is more of a concern.

my personal stance is that I can and will be convinced by good data, so I’m not arguing it couldn’t be effective; that data simply isn’t out there right now and needs to be borne out from appropriately designed clinical trials. For example, this one: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investigated-possible-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial

edit: not medical advice
 
Last edited:
Whisky

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
as ridiculous as i agree that the post that sparked emotions to run high was, if we start censoring comments and opinions where does it end?...i think a more rational way to debate this would be if someone posts something that anyone thinks is false they should post rebuttal evidence...instead of letting emotions run high calm and reason should rule the day, imo.

civility and respectfulness is sadly in short supply today---along with common sense.
I do agree, my point was more than neither side should be stating ‘facts’ as right now even a study suggesting one thing could be disproven in a month or so by another study. Long term scientific consensus won’t be available for some years imo.

Obviously the other thing is neither side should post stuff they make up simply to support their argument…..should be a given but happens frequently.

just my view but I think most things have to be ‘in my opinion’ when posted. As in, it’s healthy for us all to proffer our views (as honestly if I hear comment from others that I hadn’t considered it may change my view) but we all need to accept that this is a polarising situation for many and that there is and probably always will be a difference in opinion.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
This is a genuine question, but why are you using ivermectin, then? The concentration at which it displayed anti-viral effects is achieved by 100x the anti-parasitic dose, and the anti-parasitic dose is where the safety data is coming from. Further, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 (in vitro) research was on Vero E6 cells at 5 μM, and when human primary air way epithelium was used, ivermectin failed to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection, even at 10 μM.

So, you’re either taking a dose that would never reach the concentration necessary to inhibit viral infection, or you’re using a dose that far exceeds the safety data, and it’s still very likely not doing anything at that concentration. This is also evidenced by the myriad of trials on ivermectin, where all the positive results come from small studies with shoddy design, and one of the large, randomized control trials that was a preprint, never peer-reviewed/nor published, was just retracted because they cooked the data. That’s this one, btw: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v4

sadly, that pre-print was cited in over 30 studies on ivermectin, and represented the strongest evidence in favor of ivermectin - it was the largest trial to date. Here’s a good breakdown of all the evidence supporting the notion the data was cooked/methods were faultyhttps://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2021/07/Some-problems-with-the-data-from-a-Covid-study.html?m=1

One can even (others have done it, I haven’t) rerun all the statistics of meta-analyses with and without that study and other poorly designed trials, and any incidence of benefit/positive association with ivermectin treatment is lost.

Here’s a meta-analysis on ivermectin RCTs: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839

“In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.”

Further evidence here: https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

“An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 5 µM required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro,17 which is much higher than 0.28 µM, the maximum reported plasma concentration achieved in vivo with a dose of approximately 1700 µg/kg (about nine times the FDA-approved dosification).24 25 In this sense, basic fundamentals for assessing ivermectin in COVID-19 at a clinical level appear to be insufficient.”

“Nevertheless, assessments of ivermectin as prophylaxis or treatment for mild to severe COVID-19 continue being published in preprints26 27 and protocol repositories,28 29 which do not follow the recommended process to ensure quality standards in publications; whereas peer-reviewed reports (both observational and experimental studies) are slowly emerging, yet methodologically limited by heterogeneity in population receiving ivermectin, dosis applied and uncontrolled cointerventions.”

“Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow.37–39 The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials.”

Again I’m genuinely just curious, but based on that, it seems unreasonable to take ivermectin outside of a clinical trial, since it has questionable efficacy, and at the doses it might work, safety is more of a concern.

my personal stance is that I can and will be convinced by good data, so I’m not arguing it couldn’t be effective; that data simply isn’t out there right now and needs to be borne out from appropriately designed clinical trials. For example, this one: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investigated-possible-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial

edit: not medical advice
great example of how to debate in a civil and respectful way!!!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
u_e_s_i Supplements 2
Anabolics 24
jtmartin18 Anabolics 11
Anabolics 9
Supplement Auction 0

Similar threads


Top