COVID-19 Pandemic (Coronavirus)
- Thread starter null
- Start date
You can’t expect anyone to still be wearing a mask vaccinated or unvaccinated at this pointNo
Regeneron's COVID antibody drug shows protection for up to 8 months
Regeneron's COVID antibody drug shows protection for up to 8 months
The Regeneron Pharmaceuticals company logo is seen on a building at the company's Westchester campus in Tarrytown, New York, U.S. September 17, 2020. Picture taken September 17, 2020. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
Nov 8 (Reuters) - Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc (REGN.O) said on Monday a single dose of its antibody cocktail reduced the risk of contracting COVID-19 by 81.6% in the two to eight months period following the drug's administration in a late-stage trial.
The results showed that antibody therapy, REGEN-COV, has the potential to provide long-lasting immunity from COVID-19 infection, said Myron Cohen, who leads monoclonal antibody efforts for the U.S. National Institutes of Health-sponsored COVID Prevention Network.
Such immunity is particularly important for immunocompromised people and those not responding to vaccines, the company said.
The therapy had previously shown an 81.4% risk reduction during the first month after administration.
During the 8-month assessment period, there were no hospitalizations for COVID-19 in the REGEN-COV group, but in the placebo group 6 such incidents were recorded, Regeneron said.
The U.S. health regulator in July expanded REGEN-COV's authorization to enable its use as a preventive treatment in people exposed to infected individuals, and those at high risk of such exposure in settings such as nursing homes or prisons. read more
It was authorized in the United States last November to treat people with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 disease.
Regeneron's COVID antibody drug shows protection for up to 8 months
The Regeneron Pharmaceuticals company logo is seen on a building at the company's Westchester campus in Tarrytown, New York, U.S. September 17, 2020. Picture taken September 17, 2020. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
Nov 8 (Reuters) - Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc (REGN.O) said on Monday a single dose of its antibody cocktail reduced the risk of contracting COVID-19 by 81.6% in the two to eight months period following the drug's administration in a late-stage trial.
The results showed that antibody therapy, REGEN-COV, has the potential to provide long-lasting immunity from COVID-19 infection, said Myron Cohen, who leads monoclonal antibody efforts for the U.S. National Institutes of Health-sponsored COVID Prevention Network.
Such immunity is particularly important for immunocompromised people and those not responding to vaccines, the company said.
The therapy had previously shown an 81.4% risk reduction during the first month after administration.
During the 8-month assessment period, there were no hospitalizations for COVID-19 in the REGEN-COV group, but in the placebo group 6 such incidents were recorded, Regeneron said.
The U.S. health regulator in July expanded REGEN-COV's authorization to enable its use as a preventive treatment in people exposed to infected individuals, and those at high risk of such exposure in settings such as nursing homes or prisons. read more
It was authorized in the United States last November to treat people with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 disease.
Last edited:
Problem is these conspiracy theorists and denialist ain't taking shyt. Honestly their health insurance should be like
when these clowns catch Covid and end up in the hospitalserious question
what is it like, to be a fully vaccinated, healthy adult male, and still be afraid of covid
the vaccine took your survival rate from 99.2%, to 99.8you dont need a fukking mask. you don't need to be afraid anymore
maybe they're not scared of covid perse, maybe they're scared of the possible debt incurred needing to treat covid or missing work because they have covid. there are tens of millions of folks in the U.S who can't afford to get sick or miss a weekly/bi-weekly paycheck even prior to this pandemic.
death isn't the only threat covid poses.
Ivermectin-COVID-19 Study Retracted; Authors Blame File Mixup
Ivermectin-COVID-19 Study Retracted; Authors Blame File Mixup
Retraction Watch Staff
November 03, 2021
Editor's note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape's Coronavirus Resource Center.
The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.
The paper, "Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon," appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract:
A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received. …
Results results results … and:
Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.
However, in early October, the BBC reported — in larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study:
was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.
That’s not quite what the retraction notice states:
The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above.Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis.Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal.The authors agreed to this retraction.
Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us:
It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.
About that BBC report? Samaha said:
The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.
Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.
The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that:
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.
About that BBC report? Samaha said:
The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.
Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.
The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that:
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.
That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.
Ivermectin-COVID-19 Study Retracted; Authors Blame File Mixup
Retraction Watch Staff
November 03, 2021
Editor's note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape's Coronavirus Resource Center.
The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.
The paper, "Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon," appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract:
A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received. …
Results results results … and:
Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.
However, in early October, the BBC reported — in larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study:
was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.
That’s not quite what the retraction notice states:
The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above.Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis.Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal.The authors agreed to this retraction.
Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us:
It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.
About that BBC report? Samaha said:
The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.
Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.
The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that:
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.
About that BBC report? Samaha said:
The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.
Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.
The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that:
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.
That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.
I had to go shopping yesterday and just about every white person in the store was walking around maskless.
There was even a big obese white dude walking around literally coughing into the air, sounded sick as a dog, and this fool wasn't wearing a mask. Then this fool had the nerve to look at me and say "Hey man, how ya doing?"
I looked at him like
Stuff like this is why I still stay in the house and stay masked up and gloved up even though I'm vaxxed.
We're going into the winter and these fools are literally still spreading COVID in plain sight. It's only a matter of time before we get another mutation.
And I live in a red state, so I know all them fools wasn't vaccinated.
aside from the gloves i'm onboard with what you said.
serious question
what is it like, to be a fully vaccinated, healthy adult male, and still be afraid of covid
the vaccine took your survival rate from 99.2%, to 99.8
i don't want that shyt in my system AT ALL.
You will get it at some point. That’s been inevitable for over a year. Zero covid does not, and will not exist
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,045
- Daps
- 122,406
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
serious question
what is it like, to be a fully vaccinated, healthy adult male, and still be afraid of covid
the vaccine took your survival rate from 99.2%, to 99.8
My mother goes through dialysis 3x's/wk and is immunocompromised, my aunt is 82, I have a 4-year-old 3rd cousin too young to be vaccinated, and my job does not require clients to disclose their vaccination status before I evaluate their homes.
I can be responsible for killing 3 of my immediate family members if I don't stay vigilant and COVID-free.
I don't fear COVID, but I'd never be able to live with myself for causing them harm. Just because I have a less than 1% chance of being infected, doesn't mean I CAN'T be.
Mask stays on till this shyt is measles/polio status.
That booster shot had my left arm on dead 
yesterday and sore as fukk.
but I’m good now
yesterday and sore as fukk. but I’m good now
serious question
what is it like, to be a fully vaccinated, healthy adult male, and still be afraid of covid
the vaccine took your survival rate from 99.2%, to 99.8
I'm wearing a mask because it is still mandatory and because people just flat out disgusting
Now I see why them Asians were wearing masks before covid. Yall gross
$cam-U-Well_Jack$on
Superstar
That booster shot had my left arm on dead
but I’m good now
Did they ask for qualifications or you just walked in and got it???