3 ms·

If you'll look carefully, you'll see that's a non peer-reviewed opinion piece. That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals

If you'll look carefully, you'll see that's a non peer-reviewed opinion piece. That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. Just to rebut the first thing random thing I saw: "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)" They are bringing up the in-vitro studies initially done on monkey kidney cells, and then claiming that you'll need such a high dose in a clinical setting. The doses for prophylactic and early treatment are an order of magnitude lower (0.2mg/kg) [1], and in that dose it's safer than paracetamol. "Ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 0.2mg/kg." [2] In my second link, there's a talk rebutting the in-vitro safety concerns in detail: [3] There are over 50 studies showing that Ivermectin is effective, and more are coming in every day. [4] 1. https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-pl... 2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12362927/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12362927/ 3. https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=4702 https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=4702 4. https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/

chimprich 5y ago
> That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. I'm going to trust an opinion in the BMJ over: > There are over 50 studies showing that Ivermectin is effective There have been a vast number of junk studies produced during the pandemic and rolling out 50 of them means very little. How many of them are pre-registered RCTs? How many of them are in low-quality journals? The BMJ article actually refers to that https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ site: "Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/ https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol."
- codeflow2202 5y ago
  To be fair the c19ivermectin site only states: Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. If you want a meta-analysis that picks for you the quality studies from that list that's also avilable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
- shaicoleman 5y ago
  > I'm going to trust an opinion in the BMJ over: If that opinion contains patently false information and assumptions (e.g. early in-vitro study needed a high dose, therefore that same dose must be required in clinical patients), then that opinion is not trustworthy, regardless of whether it's on the BMJ website or not. See also here [1] under the "Big Science" heading, why the current system is broken. 1. https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea...
sharperguy 5y ago
Notice how if the same censorship rules were applied here, this entire conversation would be disallowed, and no learning on the topic could take place.

chimprich 5y ago

> That's a prime example of disinformation, and indeed the most reputable journals unfortunately play a role in it. I'm going to trust an opinion in the BMJ over: > There are over 50 studies showing that Ivermectin is effective There have been a vast number of junk studies produced during the pandemic and rolling out 50 of them means very little. How many of them are pre-registered RCTs? How many of them are in low-quality journals? The BMJ article actually refers to that https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ site: "Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/ https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol."

codeflow2202 5y ago
To be fair the c19ivermectin site only states: Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. If you want a meta-analysis that picks for you the quality studies from that list that's also avilable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
shaicoleman 5y ago
> I'm going to trust an opinion in the BMJ over: If that opinion contains patently false information and assumptions (e.g. early in-vitro study needed a high dose, therefore that same dose must be required in clinical patients), then that opinion is not trustworthy, regardless of whether it's on the BMJ website or not. See also here [1] under the "Big Science" heading, why the current system is broken. 1. https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea...

sharperguy 5y ago

Notice how if the same censorship rules were applied here, this entire conversation would be disallowed, and no learning on the topic could take place.