Serious Merdeka MiLF SPG trust AMDK Evangelist take Magic Pill To meet Might God!

[Pinkieslut]

Grandmother hospitalised after taking ivermectin to ‘protect herself’ against Covid-19​

SINGAPORE - A 65-year-old retiree fell violently ill and has been hospitalised after taking a drug meant to treat parasite infestations on the urging of her church friends to protect herself from Covid-19.

Madam Wong Lee Tak had taken four 3mg tablets of ivermectin over two days. She became ill on Friday (Oct 1), believed to be her second day of taking the prescription drug.

She suffered a 39.3 deg C fever, inflammation on her joints and would "vomit violently" after eating food, said her daughter Vanessa Koh, 32.

"I couldn't get her to eat anything. She had some oats to eat before she took medicine, but she vomited everything violently. It just exploded out of her mouth," Ms Koh told The Straits Times on Monday (Oct 4).

She took her mother to Sengkang General Hospital on Friday (Oct 1), where she remains hospitalised in stable condition.

The family initially thought that Madam Wong was suffering from side effects to her first jab of the Sinopharm vaccine that she took on Sept 23.

Ms Koh said it had taken months of heated persuasion to convince her mother to get vaccinated, as a group of close friends from the Church of the Risen Christ had urged her not to get vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines as it was against God.

"We got into quite a lot of quarrels because she didn't want to be vaccinated," said Ms Koh.

"It was such a strain on my family as with all her conditions, (my mother) is a sure-hit if she gets the virus."

Madam Wong has diabetes and high blood pressure, which makes her vulnerable to severe illness, said Ms Koh.

In the end, her mother chose to get the Chinese Sinopharm vaccine.

While it did not have the highest efficacy rate against Covid-19, it was better than nothing for her mother, said Ms Koh, who felt it was important that her mother get protected.

The banker said her one-year-old son was looked after by her mother during the day.

"My son could feel something was not right with my mum on Friday when she kept lying on the bed. When we didn't let him near her, he wanted to cry," said Ms Koh, whose father is now looking after her son.

"Today, he kept going to the study room, hoping to find her sitting there."

Ms Vanessa Koh with her one-year-old son, and her mother, Ms Koh (second from right). PHOTO: COURTESY OF MS VANESSA KOH
While looking after her mother when her symptoms first surfaced, Ms Koh found messages on her mother's phone, which revealed that a church member had taken orders for purchases of 1,000 ivermectin pills for $110.

A photo of a table recommending the drug's dosage by body weight for "prophylaxis and treatment of Covid-19" was sent by another member.

Ivermectin cannot be purchased over the counter but is usually prescribed by a doctor to treat head lice and other infestations. It is also used in large quantities to treat animals such as dogs and horses for heartworm and parasites.

A cautionary note on the packaging said the pills were not to be sold by retail without the prescription of a registered medical practitioner.

Ivermectin garnered attention late last year after early research indicated its potential in treating Covid-19, but the World Health Organisation in March warned that evidence was inconclusive and more studies were needed.

Ms Koh said she confronted her mother, who revealed she had purchased nine boxes of some 1,000 pills, which she hid in her study room.

"It was like carrying out my own mini drug raid. But when I asked my mother about why she is taking this, she can't tell me anything that is scientifically sound," said Ms Koh.

Her mother told her she had taken ivermectin as she believed the vaccine was useless.

"I know she just wants to say that vaccines are Satanic. She and her friends are not interested in science."

In Madam Wong's text messages, one church friend had told her, "don't allow Satan to win" and that the virus was a test of faith.

Ms Koh said she had never met the group members, and that they have not contacted her or her mother since she fell ill.

The group administrators have since removed her mother from the Telegram chats and erased all conversations with her, she added.

"They shouldn't pretend that they are experts. They told her to get ivermectin, but now my mother is suffering alone.

"(These friends) have been a pain to the family for a long time, but this time it was a step too far," said Ms Koh, who posted about her mother's ordeal on Facebook on Sunday, along with photos of her mother's text conversations with various church friends.

In response to Ms Koh's post, parish priest Edward Lim from the Church of the Risen Christ said on Facebook that the church was aware that one of its parishioners had been hospitalised after ingesting ivermectin on the advice of some church friends.

He said: "We would like to advise everyone to protect themselves from the Covid-19 virus by taking officially prescribed safety measures available to them. Only accept vaccines approved by the authorities which are made available at accredited centres authorised to administer the jabs."

He also clarified that while the decision to be vaccinated is a personal choice, all followers were encouraged to get vaccinated "for the greater good of the community".

He also quoted Archbishop William Goh, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Singapore as saying: “We all have a moral duty to protect our health, and a similar moral duty to pursue the common good of the health of everyone in society. Vaccination seems to be the best means available to us now to prevent the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

 

[porcaputtana]

I have very low opinion of christians . They are brainwashed, entitled, snobbish, selfish and hypocritical. The bible bashers who preach the loudest are the usually the biggest motherfuckers.

it‘s a religion for the rich and elite .

 

[Leongsam]

Ivermectin should work as long as you don't take the right dose.

Published online 2021 Jun 21. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402
PMCID: PMC8248252
PMID: 34145166

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines​

Andrew Bryant, MSc,1,* Theresa A. Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD,2 Therese Dowswell, PhD,2 Edmund J. Fordham, PhD,2 Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS,3 Sarah R. Hill, PhD,1 and Tony C. Tham, MD, FRCP4
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Go to:

Background:​

Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.

Areas of uncertainty:​

We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.

Data sources:​

We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.

Therapeutic Advances:​

Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.

Conclusions:​

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Keywords: ivermectin, prophylaxis, treatment, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2

 

[porcaputtana]

Ivermectin should work as long as you don't take the right dose.

That doesn’t even make any sense

 

[porcaputtana]

Can you explain how a anthemintic can function as an anti viral ?

you just missed the Nobel prize . You might get next year’s

 

[Leongsam]

That doesn’t even make any sense

There are lots of drugs in medicine that defy our understanding but they still work based upon double blind testing.

 

[nayr69sg]

Wah the daughter is banker!!!! Rich people!

And patient is always right lah.

Patient autonomy! Doctors have no right to influence patients! Patients know better. It is their body.

Friends also ok to give advice and influence. Just not Drs. They study so much they are not allowed to influence patients!

 

[Leongsam]

washingtonpost.com

One big myth about medicine: We know how drugs work​

Carolyn Y. Johnson

7-9 minutes

---

Here’s how we think we discover powerful new medicines: Scientists dig deep into biology and zero in on a molecular Achilles’ heel that could disable a devastating disease, be it cancer or an infection. They concoct experimental drugs that hit the target. Then they conduct trials to find one that is safe and effective in people.

Here’s how we actually develop a surprising number of treatments: good old-fashioned observation, trial and error, and luck. Detailed scientific understanding of how a drug works often comes, ironically enough, near the end of the process.

“It’s sort of a fairy tale,” said Jon Clardy, a professor of biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Harvard Medical School, of the idea that drugs are born mostly from reason and not serendipity. “If you think of it as an aspirational goal, it’s fine.”

Understanding how drugs are developed matters crucially because the government and companies pour billions of dollars into the endeavor. But the dirty secret of modern medicine may be that the most logically alluring method for solving diseases – steadily accruing knowledge about human biology that we can act on – hasn’t always been the best way to hit home runs. An older method of just slinging possible drugs at cells, animals -- or in some cases, people -- and watching what works has often been the more productive starting point, with understanding to come later.

“We’re not as smart as we look,” said Michael Jordan, a physician in the immunobiology division at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

A study published in the journal Science on Thursday neatly illustrates how understanding can trail success. Eight years ago, Jordan and colleagues in Cincinnati treated a 12-year-old boy who had been sick for years, suffering from a rare genetic disease that caused his immune system to wreak havoc on his lungs and guts. He came to the hospital to be evaluated for a possible bone marrow transplant that would fully replace his immune system, but he was too sick for the procedure. It was a palliative move when the medical team decided to give him abatacept, a drug approved for rheumatoid arthritis. The most attractive feature was that its side effects weren’t likely to make him sicker.

“We were expecting that he would likely die,”Jordan said. Six months later, the boy and his family came back – much improved. The medicine is far from a cure, but he is still alive today.

It's only now that Jordan and colleagues have figured out the scientific rationale for why the drug works. They've published the scientific details this week, and say it could lay the groundwork for a rigorous clinical trial – although nine patients have already been treated with the drug.

This is the sort of reverse of what you would expect under the model that is often presented to the public, but it isn't the first time Jordan has personally seen this process work in reverse. In 2013, he published a paper showing why another rare immune disorder, HLH, is successfully treated with a chemotherapy drug called etoposide. Successes with that drug were first reported in the 1980s.

“My own feeling is that there are many ways to discover drugs, and one of the mistakes we’re making at the moment is just trying to think there is one way and focusing on that,” Clardy said. “And I think what past certainly and current experience are showing, is drugs can be discovered in a bunch of different ways and you should be open-minded.”

Even in the dawning age of precision medicine, where sophisticated understanding of human biology and the genome is supposed to give scientists a leg up on disease, the most rationally designed drug still requires a little human ingenuity. More than a decade ago, a promising lung cancer drug was designed to inhibit a gene thought to be crucial for cancer. It failed, except in a small fraction of patients. That led doctors to study those patients and learn that their cancers were being driven by a mutated version of the gene.

Daniel Haber, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, quotes Louis Pasteur, the scientist who had the insight that germs carry disease: “Fortune favors the prepared mind.”

“If you think you're too smart and you only do what is scientifically indicated, there’s always going to be something, 'Oh my God, we never thought of that!'” Haber said. “If you half-know what you're doing, then you're better prepared to understand or appreciate discoveries that are serendipitous in some way."

A 2011 study reviewed a decade worth of drug approvals found that of 75 drugs that worked in a completely new way, 28 came from the more old-fashioned method of screening drugs against cells or animals, and 17 were built from detailed understanding of how the disease worked. David Swinney of the Institute for Rare and Neglected Diseases Drug Discovery said that despite the fact that far more resources are devoted to developing drugs by focusing on targets, the older method of screening has been more productive by his analysis.

A naysayer might question why, in that case, it’s even important to know how medicines work. But that’s because refining drugs and getting more effective or less toxic versions can depend on those insights. That’s what drives Thomas Bernhardt, a Harvard Medical School scientist who last year published a paper in Cell showing how penicillin, the wonder drug of more than a half century ago, works. The traditional understanding has been that the drug interfered with bacteria's cell wall, causing the germs to burst. But Bernhardt found that in fact, the drug also puts the bacteria into a futile cycle of building and tearing down cell wall components that it can't use -- he compares it to throwing a wrench in an engine.

That may seem like a scientific curiosity, but there's real utility to unraveling the mechanism of a drug -- eventually.

“If we’re trying to develop new antibiotics, as a group of scientist and an industry as well, how can we expect to be as efficient as we can at going about it, when we don’t understand how our old antibiotics work," Bernhardt said.

Robert Raffa, a professor of pharmacology at Temple University School of Pharmacy, has spent time trying to figure out how a drug found in most people’s bathroom cabinets works: the medical mystery of Tylenol.

“We can eliminate things. It is not obviously morphine-like, it is not obviously aspirin-like, and it seems so we’re beginning to narrow it down," Raffa said. "Here’s why it’s very, very important: It’s because the other options for pain relief are not optimal, by a long shot."

Drug discovery does sometimes follow that neat progression, but even when a drug starts with a coherent scientific idea about what the drug is supposed to do, twists in the road can seem like the norm. Erectile dysfunction drugs had their origins in the side effects of a blood pressure drug. Thalidomide was infamously used for morning sickness before being pulled from the market and then rescued to be used as a drug in cancer and leprosy.

In an age of ubiquitous biological information, it can seem that insight will lead us to new drugs, but it may be important to keep in mind how much we don't know.

 

[porcaputtana]

There are already 15 conclusive published trials for a meta analysis ?

Show the 15 trials . It should be in the citation of this piece of garbage .

 

[porcaputtana]

washingtonpost.com

One big myth about medicine: We know how drugs work​

Carolyn Y. Johnson

7-9 minutes

---

Here’s how we think we discover powerful new medicines: Scientists dig deep into biology and zero in on a molecular Achilles’ heel that could disable a devastating disease, be it cancer or an infection. They concoct experimental drugs that hit the target. Then they conduct trials to find one that is safe and effective in people.

Here’s how we actually develop a surprising number of treatments: good old-fashioned observation, trial and error, and luck. Detailed scientific understanding of how a drug works often comes, ironically enough, near the end of the process.

“It’s sort of a fairy tale,” said Jon Clardy, a professor of biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Harvard Medical School, of the idea that drugs are born mostly from reason and not serendipity. “If you think of it as an aspirational goal, it’s fine.”

Understanding how drugs are developed matters crucially because the government and companies pour billions of dollars into the endeavor. But the dirty secret of modern medicine may be that the most logically alluring method for solving diseases – steadily accruing knowledge about human biology that we can act on – hasn’t always been the best way to hit home runs. An older method of just slinging possible drugs at cells, animals -- or in some cases, people -- and watching what works has often been the more productive starting point, with understanding to come later.

“We’re not as smart as we look,” said Michael Jordan, a physician in the immunobiology division at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

A study published in the journal Science on Thursday neatly illustrates how understanding can trail success. Eight years ago, Jordan and colleagues in Cincinnati treated a 12-year-old boy who had been sick for years, suffering from a rare genetic disease that caused his immune system to wreak havoc on his lungs and guts. He came to the hospital to be evaluated for a possible bone marrow transplant that would fully replace his immune system, but he was too sick for the procedure. It was a palliative move when the medical team decided to give him abatacept, a drug approved for rheumatoid arthritis. The most attractive feature was that its side effects weren’t likely to make him sicker.

“We were expecting that he would likely die,”Jordan said. Six months later, the boy and his family came back – much improved. The medicine is far from a cure, but he is still alive today.

It's only now that Jordan and colleagues have figured out the scientific rationale for why the drug works. They've published the scientific details this week, and say it could lay the groundwork for a rigorous clinical trial – although nine patients have already been treated with the drug.

This is the sort of reverse of what you would expect under the model that is often presented to the public, but it isn't the first time Jordan has personally seen this process work in reverse. In 2013, he published a paper showing why another rare immune disorder, HLH, is successfully treated with a chemotherapy drug called etoposide. Successes with that drug were first reported in the 1980s.

“My own feeling is that there are many ways to discover drugs, and one of the mistakes we’re making at the moment is just trying to think there is one way and focusing on that,” Clardy said. “And I think what past certainly and current experience are showing, is drugs can be discovered in a bunch of different ways and you should be open-minded.”

Even in the dawning age of precision medicine, where sophisticated understanding of human biology and the genome is supposed to give scientists a leg up on disease, the most rationally designed drug still requires a little human ingenuity. More than a decade ago, a promising lung cancer drug was designed to inhibit a gene thought to be crucial for cancer. It failed, except in a small fraction of patients. That led doctors to study those patients and learn that their cancers were being driven by a mutated version of the gene.

Daniel Haber, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, quotes Louis Pasteur, the scientist who had the insight that germs carry disease: “Fortune favors the prepared mind.”
“If you think you're too smart and you only do what is scientifically indicated, there’s always going to be something, 'Oh my God, we never thought of that!'” Haber said. “If you half-know what you're doing, then you're better prepared to understand or appreciate discoveries that are serendipitous in some way."

A 2011 study reviewed a decade worth of drug approvals found that of 75 drugs that worked in a completely new way, 28 came from the more old-fashioned method of screening drugs against cells or animals, and 17 were built from detailed understanding of how the disease worked. David Swinney of the Institute for Rare and Neglected Diseases Drug Discovery said that despite the fact that far more resources are devoted to developing drugs by focusing on targets, the older method of screening has been more productive by his analysis.

A naysayer might question why, in that case, it’s even important to know how medicines work. But that’s because refining drugs and getting more effective or less toxic versions can depend on those insights. That’s what drives Thomas Bernhardt, a Harvard Medical School scientist who last year published a paper in Cell showing how penicillin, the wonder drug of more than a half century ago, works. The traditional understanding has been that the drug interfered with bacteria's cell wall, causing the germs to burst. But Bernhardt found that in fact, the drug also puts the bacteria into a futile cycle of building and tearing down cell wall components that it can't use -- he compares it to throwing a wrench in an engine.

That may seem like a scientific curiosity, but there's real utility to unraveling the mechanism of a drug -- eventually.

“If we’re trying to develop new antibiotics, as a group of scientist and an industry as well, how can we expect to be as efficient as we can at going about it, when we don’t understand how our old antibiotics work," Bernhardt said.

Robert Raffa, a professor of pharmacology at Temple University School of Pharmacy, has spent time trying to figure out how a drug found in most people’s bathroom cabinets works: the medical mystery of Tylenol.

“We can eliminate things. It is not obviously morphine-like, it is not obviously aspirin-like, and it seems so we’re beginning to narrow it down," Raffa said. "Here’s why it’s very, very important: It’s because the other options for pain relief are not optimal, by a long shot."

Drug discovery does sometimes follow that neat progression, but even when a drug starts with a coherent scientific idea about what the drug is supposed to do, twists in the road can seem like the norm. Erectile dysfunction drugs had their origins in the side effects of a blood pressure drug. Thalidomide was infamously used for morning sickness before being pulled from the market and then rescued to be used as a drug in cancer and leprosy.

In an age of ubiquitous biological information, it can seem that insight will lead us to new drugs, but it may be important to keep in mind how much we don't know.

so have you given ivermectin to your mother to help her fight covid ?

yup to a certain degree I agree with you . After all everyone’s fave drug viagra was an offshoot from a vasodilator.

right now I don’t think anyone will bother to fund trials to show your ivermectin works. It’s faster and more cost effective to develop a proper antiviral from the existing class of antivirals . Pharma companies know how to zero in on profits .

 

[porcaputtana]

Wah the daughter is banker!!!! Rich people!

And patient is always right lah.

Patient autonomy! Doctors have no right to influence patients! Patients know better. It is their body.

Friends also ok to give advice and influence. Just not Drs. They study so much they are not allowed to influence patients!

NUS Medicine is full of these self righteous zombies . I had a torrid time dealing with them. I made it crystal clear to any resident I would fire them if they were caught evangelisIng .

 

[Leongsam]

so have you given ivermectin to your mother to help her fight covid ?

My mother has been dead for the last 20 years. She died even though there was no Covid at the time which proves that Covid is not the only killer on this earth. There are far more mundane ways to die.

 

[Leongsam]

NUS Medicine is full of these self righteous zombies . I had a torrid time dealing with them. I made it crystal clear to any resident I would fire them if they were caught evangelisIng .

The problem with you is that you have a closed mind. I don't believe in any religion but I wouldn't go as far as to say that God does not exist because there are many things that happen that are beyond human comprehension.

 

[nayr69sg]

NUS Medicine is full of these self righteous zombies . I had a torrid time dealing with them. I made it crystal clear to any resident I would fire them if they were caught evangelisIng .

Must be careful! Wait they complain to Faculty Admin. Say you restricting their right to religious worship and practice.

Nowadays be Dr must be careful get complaint all over the place. Have to be very respectful of everyone except one's own self.

FIND COMMON GROUND = Go with what the other person is saying and say that side is the "common ground".

 

[nayr69sg]

The problem with you is that you have a closed mind. I don't believe in any religion but I wouldn't go as far as to say that God does not exist because there are many things that happen that are beyond human comprehension.

My mind is so open that if you tried to fuck it you would need a dick the girth of a tree trunk to feel anything.

 

[porcaputtana]

The problem with you is that you have a closed mind. I don't believe in any religion but I wouldn't go as far as to say that God does not exist because there are many things that happen that are beyond human comprehension.

An open mind is not an excuse to peddle fake science that can hurt someone .

 

[Leongsam]

An open mind is not an excuse to peddle fake science that can hurt someone .

I guess it depends upon what sort of message is being spread. I've known doctors who are devout christians who advocate the scientific approach to medicine because they believe that all medical advances are via the grace of God.

Peddling faith healing is a different kettle of fish altogether.

 

[nayr69sg]

I guess it depends upon what sort of message is being spread. I've known doctors who are devout christians who advocate the scientific approach to medicine because they believe that all medical advances are via the grace of God.

Peddling faith healing is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Uhmm I think that is religious bigotry.

So medicine is Christian? Don't lah. Talk like that wait kena complaint to SMC! Doctor showing disrepect to patient's religious beliefs and trying to impose his or her own on the patient. Patient autonomy! Not only applies to medical decisions and treatment but all things!

What about Allah? Islam?

Buddha? Taoism? The light?

Medicine should be secular as with everything non religious specific.

 

[porcaputtana]

I guess it depends upon what sort of message is being spread. I've known doctors who are devout christians who advocate the scientific approach to medicine because they believe that all medical advances are via the grace of God.

Peddling faith healing is a different kettle of fish altogether.

I estimate 70% of doctors are christians . The faculty is self selective . Rich kids from privileged backgrounds and influential parents ( ie church goers) will normally have no trouble getting in

these same 70% will sing at full throttle at Sunday services and bless one another and then come Monday stab each other in the back without hesitation

squid game pales in comparison

 

[nayr69sg]

I estimate 70% of doctors are christians . The faculty is self selective . Rich kids from privileged backgrounds and influential parents ( ie church goers) will normally have no trouble getting in

these same 70% will sing at full throttle at Sunday services and bless one another and then come Monday stab each other in the back without hesitation

squid game pales in comparison

It is ok lah. good for the hospital admin and the politicians and the patients and just about everyone.

Divided the doctors are easy to fuck.

I have accepted it. My ass is open wide wide anyone can fuck me. My mouth is open wide wide also to suck any cocks that want me to suck.

And as mentioned my mind is open wide wide there is no brains in it. totally empty glass very open to be filled with cum.