9 ms·

Ivermectin as a Covid-19 Therapy

61 points by type0 5y ago

ggm 5y ago
Nicely written. But, as predicted in the responses on the blog the rebuttal is going to be "but I watched this video..." The basics here are very strong for me: run larger tests (which btw, are still too small) and the numbers become at BEST equivocal. Run small tests, you can get some "stunning" evidence it works. Stunning, because 6/10 vs 5/10 is an apparent huge leap in efficacy, when in fact, its a single flip in the margins. 6/10 is probably 5.01/10 when you do it to 100+ test subjects. 60/100 vs 40/100 would of course be more interesting, but the likelihood of 6/10 converting to 60/100 is actually low: it was most likely a single flip, not a statistical flip of a cohort. Thats what the bigger studies appear to be telling us.
- shaicoleman 5y ago
  That approach can be described as "Big RCT Fundamentalism". https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/randomized-control-tests-doidge https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/randomiz... https://youtu.be/LkIKCbwBcLU?t=1940 https://youtu.be/LkIKCbwBcLU?t=1940
  - javagram 5y ago
    That author appears to have an axe to grind around HCQ. He mentions - writing in August 2020 - favorably the argument that an RCT shouldn’t be performed of HCQ because it is already known to be effective. ‘ RCT fundamentalists called their [hydroxychloroquine] study “flawed” and “sloppy,” implying it had a weak methodology.’ Well, now that it’s not august 2020 and we actually have the results of well conducted HCQ RCTs, we know that HCQ turned out to be no better than snake oil. All the claimed observational improvements were just anecdotes and luck. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-benefit-adults-hospitalized-covid-19 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroq... The mistaken conclusion that he came to around HCQ should be factored into evaluating the validity of the arguments he makes - which led him to downplay the need to study and verify whether HCQ was actually working.
    - shaicoleman 5y ago
      There was a disinformation campaign against Hydroxychloroquine. In the failed JAMA study, they administered a nearly toxic dose at late stage patients (when there's no viral replication). This is now being investigated. https://www.moneytimes.com.br/heinze-pede-a-pf-que-investigue-estudo-sobre-uso-elevado-de-cloroquina-em-manaus/ https://www.moneytimes.com.br/heinze-pede-a-pf-que-investigu... (in Portuguese) See for example this peer-reviewed study of 29K patients, showing 73% reduction in death. https://c19hcq.com/mokhtari.html https://c19hcq.com/mokhtari.html That said, Ivermectin is superior in almost every way, so you won't find too many people advocating for HCQ now.
      - codeflow2202 5y ago
        Waste of time I'm afraid.
  - ggm 5y ago
    "Big RCT Fundamentalism" is an interesting term. Reductionist positions are not uncommon. A test of 20 people would very probably not have uncovered the unusual clotting problem in AZ, which is 1:100,000 order occurance. Yet, it has shaped public policy. Tests of the order 1,000 would confirm AZ worked. Tests of the order 10,000 confirmed Pfizer and Moderna worked "better" The PEG problem in mRNA, like the clotting problem, needs tests of the order 1m to become apparent. If Ivermectin and HCQ had benefits, they'd be clearer if better RCT at scale were done. The benefit of steroids (for instance) were so clear, they were able to decide the protocols from thousands of tests (from what I read) which is maybe what "big RCT fundamentalism" tells us: These trials of 10 or 20 people, observational, are too strongly distorted by one and two person effects to say what the underlying trend is. In primary school we were warned away from small sample sizes in basic stats. I'm not seeing anything here to make me think this was wrong. 100 people tell you more than 10 do, and 1000 confirms the accuracy. 1 person variance in 100 is not altering the fundamentals the way 1 person variance in 10 is. Whats so "fundamentalist" about this?
    - shaicoleman 5y ago
      > Whats so "fundamentalist" about this? For example take this peer-reviewed study for Ivermectin as a prophylaxis which was published back in Nov/2020. https://c19ivermectin.com/carvalloprep.html https://c19ivermectin.com/carvalloprep.html https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd... * 0 out of 788 (0%) in the treatment group got COVID. * 237 out of 408 (58.2%) in the control group got COVID. The treatment group were volunteers who agreed to take it, so it wasn't an RCT. "Big RCT Fundamentalism" discards that study, because it wasn't a big RCT, even though the signal to noise is obviously clear, and it has been replicated study after study, including smaller RCTs (when using a weekly dose of at least 0.2mg/kg). There are no big RCTs that show the same effect, because they can cost millions and there's no incentive for anyone to fund it.
      - ggm 5y ago
        You're using a very specific complaint about science formalism not about numbers but about recruitment and randomisation. My comment went to numbers, not recruitment. If your problem is outsider science, please be more specific. You could (for instance) cite PLOS one reports on Ivermectin instead of random domains with an axe to grind: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+plosone%2FPLoSONE+%28PLOS+ONE+-+New+Articles%29 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247163 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- spadez 5y ago
  > rebuttal is going to be "but I watched this video..." Not really, you can read the rebuttal from FLCCC here This is a response to the NIH/WHO judgement from FLCCC Alliance. I think it should be considered as well. https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-response-to-all-national-and-international-health-agency-recommendations-against-ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea... https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FLCCC-Statement-on-Weak-Guidance-on-Ivermectin-from-WHO-March-31-2021.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/F...
seventytwo 5y ago
This entire debate is a red herring, considering many states don’t even have 30% first shot coverage yet. Get your damn shots, ffs.
- amscanne 5y ago
  AFAICT, not a single state is below 30%. Mississippi is the lowest at 34.9%.
- javagram 5y ago
  Many ivermectin proponents online also advocate against the vaccine. If someone does accept the validity of the scientific studies of vaccine effectiveness, they probably aren’t so jazzed about promoting ivermectin because they’d realize vaccines are even more effective and a permanent or semi permanent solution, rather than having everyone in the country have to regularly take a new medication. In any case ivermectin appears to be the new hydroxychloquine. A medicine that was randomly seized on as theoretically being effective against viruses and has failed in every properly conducted RCT. Therapeutic efforts would be far better focused on making mAb treatments cheaper and more available, since they’ve been proven about 80% effective both as prophylaxis and a therapeutic.
  - shaicoleman 5y ago
    There are different ways to get COVID under control: * Vaccination * Get naturally infected - natural infection offers broad and long lasting immunity * Prophylaxis * Early treatment The data is showing that Ivermectin is almost 100% effective as a prophylaxis, and that early treatment on first symptoms, it's on par with a flu. Currently we're only pursuing vaccination as the only solution, resulting in millions of unnecessary deaths and trillions of economic damage. Some people are hesitant to use a vaccine without long term safety data, and using Ivermectin is a safe alternative that also contributes to herd immunity.
    - javagram 5y ago
      > Get naturally infected - natural infection offers broad and long lasting immunity Baffling to see this listed as a way to get covid “under control”. If people getting naturally infected is fine, what is there to control? The whole reason people are concerned about getting covid under control is that natural infection would kill around 0.5% of a population in a developed country, or more if the hospital system becomes overwhelmed and oxygen or other standard of care treatment isn’t available. > The data is showing that Ivermectin is almost 100% effective as a prophylaxis No placebo controlled RCT has shown this that I’m aware of for ivermectin (as discussed in the parent article). The evidence for the vaccines, steriod, or mAb treatments working is backed by placebo controlled RCT. The article states: “ All in all, though, the most compelling reports of ivermectin’s effects seem to come from the smallest and least controlled samples (all the way down to anecdotal results) while the larger and more well-controlled trials tend to produce equivocal evidence at best.” > and using Ivermectin is a safe alternative that also contributes to herd immunity. How would it create herd immunity? Would people have to take ivermectin for the rest of their lives as an alternative to the vaccine?
version_five 5y ago
I have seen an increasing amount of Ivermectin promotion recently, and at face value it looks worth pursuing. My biggest concern is the overall shady nature of many of its proponents, and specifically when I see posts or individuals that in the same breath have a strong anti-vaccine stance that and are promoting Ivermectin. Obviously the two things have nothing to do with each other, and frankly I can't understand what the agenda is there. Its promising to see something in Science which I hope has a higher bar, although I'm not familiar with the blogs section Edit: > An editorially independent blog from the publishers of Science Translational Medicine. All content is Derek’s own, and he does not in any way speak for his employer.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  You think it's shady to look into a drug that is out of patent? What is the profit motive there?
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Obviously the two things have nothing to do with each other, and frankly I can't understand what the agenda is there. The apparently-rational argument the shady-type make that Ivermectin is so good you don't need vaccines. But I don't think any honest advocates can claim that. The fuzzy-irrational argument is you can't "trust" the medical industrial complex 'cause they're pushing vaccines and suppressing Ivermectin. This stuff is terrible but there's method to their madness.
- fernly 5y ago
  What connects antivax and untutored Ivermectin promotion is a generalized, reflexive, contrarian rejection of anything perceived as "establishment" science.
  - krrrh 5y ago
    For some it’s also an application of the precautionary principle, and a worry that rushing into widespread application of an experimental treatment may present unknown harms. Contra to the contrarians rejecting establishment science, a secondary concern driving the precautionary perspective is a fear that if there are major medium or long term complications then it would lead to a widespread distrust of the scientific establishment itself. The problem is that an epistemic closure around this issue has emerged for a variety of reasons, so the people who are skeptical and willing to talk about it are few in number and looking for allies, so you end up with a rather motley crew. I’m interested in what people like Pierre Kory and Tess Lawrie say on this issue because they seem like credible people without a track record of crankery, and they’ve looked at the same evidence as the WHO and come to different conclusions. Even if they are wrong it is interesting to engrave with and figure out why. And if they are right, it would be good to figure that out sooner rather than later. But any time I stick around in the forums where their work is discussed the comments section is often overrun by unhinged wackos with different motivations.
shaicoleman 5y ago
If someone's interested in learning about the evidence for Ivermectin, I've written a summary of the main notes from the Ivermectin Global Summit. This is a good introduction to the overwhelming wealth of data showing that Ivermectin is a safe and effective in the prevention and early treatment of COVID-19. https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/nj9713/ivermectin_global_summit_20210523/gz8drdq https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/nj9713/ivermect...
- cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
  Unfortunately, by managing trials such that no early treatment takes place and the experimental medicine in quesiton isn't administered until the virus is entrenched, they not only dishonestly "proved" that ivermectin and hcq don't work, but they created test conditions where they could prove that _nothing_ works.
- rejectedandsad 5y ago
  We have a vaccine free at the point of service and cheap to produce in bulk. Even if this works (which it probably doesn’t) who cares?
  - rurban 5y ago
    Those who get infected despite an vaccination e.g.
    - rejectedandsad 5y ago
      Hospitalization as a result of that is extremely rare
      - rurban 5y ago
        Yes, but long-covid symptoms (no smell, heart muscle, nerves) are troublesome, so you better do something against it. same as with a bad flu. you need to help fighting the side-effects of the viral infections, and then the bacterial infection caused by the viral infections.
h2odragon 5y ago
Ivermectin is great against many parasitic worms, and it's probably not going to kill your collie anymore (those lines died off a decade and more ago).
- krrrh 5y ago
  I’ve been doing a deep dive on ivermectin the last few days and that’s something I didn’t know. TIL. https://www.thesprucepets.com/ivermectin-based-heartworm-medicines-collie-breeds-3384696 https://www.thesprucepets.com/ivermectin-based-heartworm-med...
MilnerRoute 5y ago
Less than 10 weeks ago the UN agency responsible for international health convened "an independent, international panel of experts, which includes clinical care experts in multiple specialties and also include an ethicist and patient-partners." Their findings concluded there was in fact "very low certainty" of any possible positive effects. The group reviewed pooled data from 16 randomized controlled trials (total enrolled 2407), including both inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19. They determined that the evidence on whether ivermectin reduces mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission and time to clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients is of “very low certainty,” due to the small sizes and methodological limitations of available trial data, including small number of events. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-adv...
- shaicoleman 5y ago
  See how they arrived to this conclusion: https://youtu.be/LkIKCbwBcLU?t=2940 https://youtu.be/LkIKCbwBcLU?t=2940
rrock 5y ago
The flag on this article is unwarranted. Derek’s analysis is excellent.
mkw2k 5y ago
Here we go
codeflow2202 5y ago
What worries me the most is that both Lowe's and the WHO's judgement were highly influenced by the Lopez study, which has a striking list of protocol violations. Anyone can check the comments in the article, or here https://osf.io/u7ewz/ https://osf.io/u7ewz/ Lowe mentions: "Objections have been raised to that trial’s use of an oral suspension formulation, I should note.". But by reading the linked article we can see that there is much more to note: "In the statistical analysis subsection of the article, the authors acknowledged 2 RCT issues: i) they modified the primary end point to time from randomization to complete resolution of symptoms within the 21-day follow-up period and ii) a labeling error occurred between September 29 and October 15, 2020, resulting in an unblinded protocol during this time frame." Seems weird that while everyone is pushing hard on the limitations of the studies that favor IVM, we get a pass for this study by making it so influential.
spadez 5y ago
This is a response to the NIH/WHO judgement from FLCCC Alliance. I think it should be considered as well. https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-response-to-all-national-and-international-health-agency-recommendations-against-ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea... https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FLCCC-Statement-on-Weak-Guidance-on-Ivermectin-from-WHO-March-31-2021.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/F...
yehosef 5y ago
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/i-dont-know-of-a-bigger-story-in-the-world-right-now-than-ivermectin-ny-times-best-selling-author.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/i-dont-know-of-a-big...

61 points by type0 5y ago

ggm 5y ago

Nicely written. But, as predicted in the responses on the blog the rebuttal is going to be "but I watched this video..." The basics here are very strong for me: run larger tests (which btw, are still too small) and the numbers become at BEST equivocal. Run small tests, you can get some "stunning" evidence it works. Stunning, because 6/10 vs 5/10 is an apparent huge leap in efficacy, when in fact, its a single flip in the margins. 6/10 is probably 5.01/10 when you do it to 100+ test subjects. 60/100 vs 40/100 would of course be more interesting, but the likelihood of 6/10 converting to 60/100 is actually low: it was most likely a single flip, not a statistical flip of a cohort. Thats what the bigger studies appear to be telling us.

shaicoleman 5y ago
That approach can be described as "Big RCT Fundamentalism". https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/randomized-control-tests-doidge https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/randomiz... https://youtu.be/LkIKCbwBcLU?t=1940 https://youtu.be/LkIKCbwBcLU?t=1940
- javagram 5y ago
  That author appears to have an axe to grind around HCQ. He mentions - writing in August 2020 - favorably the argument that an RCT shouldn’t be performed of HCQ because it is already known to be effective. ‘ RCT fundamentalists called their [hydroxychloroquine] study “flawed” and “sloppy,” implying it had a weak methodology.’ Well, now that it’s not august 2020 and we actually have the results of well conducted HCQ RCTs, we know that HCQ turned out to be no better than snake oil. All the claimed observational improvements were just anecdotes and luck. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-benefit-adults-hospitalized-covid-19 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroq... The mistaken conclusion that he came to around HCQ should be factored into evaluating the validity of the arguments he makes - which led him to downplay the need to study and verify whether HCQ was actually working.
  - shaicoleman 5y ago
    There was a disinformation campaign against Hydroxychloroquine. In the failed JAMA study, they administered a nearly toxic dose at late stage patients (when there's no viral replication). This is now being investigated. https://www.moneytimes.com.br/heinze-pede-a-pf-que-investigue-estudo-sobre-uso-elevado-de-cloroquina-em-manaus/ https://www.moneytimes.com.br/heinze-pede-a-pf-que-investigu... (in Portuguese) See for example this peer-reviewed study of 29K patients, showing 73% reduction in death. https://c19hcq.com/mokhtari.html https://c19hcq.com/mokhtari.html That said, Ivermectin is superior in almost every way, so you won't find too many people advocating for HCQ now.
    - codeflow2202 5y ago
      Waste of time I'm afraid.
- ggm 5y ago
  "Big RCT Fundamentalism" is an interesting term. Reductionist positions are not uncommon. A test of 20 people would very probably not have uncovered the unusual clotting problem in AZ, which is 1:100,000 order occurance. Yet, it has shaped public policy. Tests of the order 1,000 would confirm AZ worked. Tests of the order 10,000 confirmed Pfizer and Moderna worked "better" The PEG problem in mRNA, like the clotting problem, needs tests of the order 1m to become apparent. If Ivermectin and HCQ had benefits, they'd be clearer if better RCT at scale were done. The benefit of steroids (for instance) were so clear, they were able to decide the protocols from thousands of tests (from what I read) which is maybe what "big RCT fundamentalism" tells us: These trials of 10 or 20 people, observational, are too strongly distorted by one and two person effects to say what the underlying trend is. In primary school we were warned away from small sample sizes in basic stats. I'm not seeing anything here to make me think this was wrong. 100 people tell you more than 10 do, and 1000 confirms the accuracy. 1 person variance in 100 is not altering the fundamentals the way 1 person variance in 10 is. Whats so "fundamentalist" about this?
  - shaicoleman 5y ago
    > Whats so "fundamentalist" about this? For example take this peer-reviewed study for Ivermectin as a prophylaxis which was published back in Nov/2020. https://c19ivermectin.com/carvalloprep.html https://c19ivermectin.com/carvalloprep.html https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd... * 0 out of 788 (0%) in the treatment group got COVID. * 237 out of 408 (58.2%) in the control group got COVID. The treatment group were volunteers who agreed to take it, so it wasn't an RCT. "Big RCT Fundamentalism" discards that study, because it wasn't a big RCT, even though the signal to noise is obviously clear, and it has been replicated study after study, including smaller RCTs (when using a weekly dose of at least 0.2mg/kg). There are no big RCTs that show the same effect, because they can cost millions and there's no incentive for anyone to fund it.
    - ggm 5y ago
      You're using a very specific complaint about science formalism not about numbers but about recruitment and randomisation. My comment went to numbers, not recruitment. If your problem is outsider science, please be more specific. You could (for instance) cite PLOS one reports on Ivermectin instead of random domains with an axe to grind: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+plosone%2FPLoSONE+%28PLOS+ONE+-+New+Articles%29 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247163 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
spadez 5y ago
> rebuttal is going to be "but I watched this video..." Not really, you can read the rebuttal from FLCCC here This is a response to the NIH/WHO judgement from FLCCC Alliance. I think it should be considered as well. https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-response-to-all-national-and-international-health-agency-recommendations-against-ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea... https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FLCCC-Statement-on-Weak-Guidance-on-Ivermectin-from-WHO-March-31-2021.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/F...

seventytwo 5y ago

This entire debate is a red herring, considering many states don’t even have 30% first shot coverage yet. Get your damn shots, ffs.

amscanne 5y ago
AFAICT, not a single state is below 30%. Mississippi is the lowest at 34.9%.
javagram 5y ago
Many ivermectin proponents online also advocate against the vaccine. If someone does accept the validity of the scientific studies of vaccine effectiveness, they probably aren’t so jazzed about promoting ivermectin because they’d realize vaccines are even more effective and a permanent or semi permanent solution, rather than having everyone in the country have to regularly take a new medication. In any case ivermectin appears to be the new hydroxychloquine. A medicine that was randomly seized on as theoretically being effective against viruses and has failed in every properly conducted RCT. Therapeutic efforts would be far better focused on making mAb treatments cheaper and more available, since they’ve been proven about 80% effective both as prophylaxis and a therapeutic.
- shaicoleman 5y ago
  There are different ways to get COVID under control: * Vaccination * Get naturally infected - natural infection offers broad and long lasting immunity * Prophylaxis * Early treatment The data is showing that Ivermectin is almost 100% effective as a prophylaxis, and that early treatment on first symptoms, it's on par with a flu. Currently we're only pursuing vaccination as the only solution, resulting in millions of unnecessary deaths and trillions of economic damage. Some people are hesitant to use a vaccine without long term safety data, and using Ivermectin is a safe alternative that also contributes to herd immunity.
  - javagram 5y ago
    > Get naturally infected - natural infection offers broad and long lasting immunity Baffling to see this listed as a way to get covid “under control”. If people getting naturally infected is fine, what is there to control? The whole reason people are concerned about getting covid under control is that natural infection would kill around 0.5% of a population in a developed country, or more if the hospital system becomes overwhelmed and oxygen or other standard of care treatment isn’t available. > The data is showing that Ivermectin is almost 100% effective as a prophylaxis No placebo controlled RCT has shown this that I’m aware of for ivermectin (as discussed in the parent article). The evidence for the vaccines, steriod, or mAb treatments working is backed by placebo controlled RCT. The article states: “ All in all, though, the most compelling reports of ivermectin’s effects seem to come from the smallest and least controlled samples (all the way down to anecdotal results) while the larger and more well-controlled trials tend to produce equivocal evidence at best.” > and using Ivermectin is a safe alternative that also contributes to herd immunity. How would it create herd immunity? Would people have to take ivermectin for the rest of their lives as an alternative to the vaccine?

version_five 5y ago

I have seen an increasing amount of Ivermectin promotion recently, and at face value it looks worth pursuing. My biggest concern is the overall shady nature of many of its proponents, and specifically when I see posts or individuals that in the same breath have a strong anti-vaccine stance that and are promoting Ivermectin. Obviously the two things have nothing to do with each other, and frankly I can't understand what the agenda is there. Its promising to see something in Science which I hope has a higher bar, although I'm not familiar with the blogs section Edit: > An editorially independent blog from the publishers of Science Translational Medicine. All content is Derek’s own, and he does not in any way speak for his employer.

briefcomment 5y ago
You think it's shady to look into a drug that is out of patent? What is the profit motive there?
joe_the_user 5y ago
Obviously the two things have nothing to do with each other, and frankly I can't understand what the agenda is there. The apparently-rational argument the shady-type make that Ivermectin is so good you don't need vaccines. But I don't think any honest advocates can claim that. The fuzzy-irrational argument is you can't "trust" the medical industrial complex 'cause they're pushing vaccines and suppressing Ivermectin. This stuff is terrible but there's method to their madness.
fernly 5y ago
What connects antivax and untutored Ivermectin promotion is a generalized, reflexive, contrarian rejection of anything perceived as "establishment" science.
- krrrh 5y ago
  For some it’s also an application of the precautionary principle, and a worry that rushing into widespread application of an experimental treatment may present unknown harms. Contra to the contrarians rejecting establishment science, a secondary concern driving the precautionary perspective is a fear that if there are major medium or long term complications then it would lead to a widespread distrust of the scientific establishment itself. The problem is that an epistemic closure around this issue has emerged for a variety of reasons, so the people who are skeptical and willing to talk about it are few in number and looking for allies, so you end up with a rather motley crew. I’m interested in what people like Pierre Kory and Tess Lawrie say on this issue because they seem like credible people without a track record of crankery, and they’ve looked at the same evidence as the WHO and come to different conclusions. Even if they are wrong it is interesting to engrave with and figure out why. And if they are right, it would be good to figure that out sooner rather than later. But any time I stick around in the forums where their work is discussed the comments section is often overrun by unhinged wackos with different motivations.

shaicoleman 5y ago

If someone's interested in learning about the evidence for Ivermectin, I've written a summary of the main notes from the Ivermectin Global Summit. This is a good introduction to the overwhelming wealth of data showing that Ivermectin is a safe and effective in the prevention and early treatment of COVID-19. https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/nj9713/ivermectin_global_summit_20210523/gz8drdq https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/nj9713/ivermect...

cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
Unfortunately, by managing trials such that no early treatment takes place and the experimental medicine in quesiton isn't administered until the virus is entrenched, they not only dishonestly "proved" that ivermectin and hcq don't work, but they created test conditions where they could prove that _nothing_ works.
rejectedandsad 5y ago
We have a vaccine free at the point of service and cheap to produce in bulk. Even if this works (which it probably doesn’t) who cares?
- rurban 5y ago
  Those who get infected despite an vaccination e.g.
  - rejectedandsad 5y ago
    Hospitalization as a result of that is extremely rare
    - rurban 5y ago
      Yes, but long-covid symptoms (no smell, heart muscle, nerves) are troublesome, so you better do something against it. same as with a bad flu. you need to help fighting the side-effects of the viral infections, and then the bacterial infection caused by the viral infections.

h2odragon 5y ago

Ivermectin is great against many parasitic worms, and it's probably not going to kill your collie anymore (those lines died off a decade and more ago).

krrrh 5y ago
I’ve been doing a deep dive on ivermectin the last few days and that’s something I didn’t know. TIL. https://www.thesprucepets.com/ivermectin-based-heartworm-medicines-collie-breeds-3384696 https://www.thesprucepets.com/ivermectin-based-heartworm-med...

MilnerRoute 5y ago

Less than 10 weeks ago the UN agency responsible for international health convened "an independent, international panel of experts, which includes clinical care experts in multiple specialties and also include an ethicist and patient-partners." Their findings concluded there was in fact "very low certainty" of any possible positive effects. The group reviewed pooled data from 16 randomized controlled trials (total enrolled 2407), including both inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19. They determined that the evidence on whether ivermectin reduces mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission and time to clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients is of “very low certainty,” due to the small sizes and methodological limitations of available trial data, including small number of events. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-adv...

shaicoleman 5y ago
See how they arrived to this conclusion: https://youtu.be/LkIKCbwBcLU?t=2940 https://youtu.be/LkIKCbwBcLU?t=2940

rrock 5y ago

The flag on this article is unwarranted. Derek’s analysis is excellent.

mkw2k 5y ago

Here we go

codeflow2202 5y ago

What worries me the most is that both Lowe's and the WHO's judgement were highly influenced by the Lopez study, which has a striking list of protocol violations. Anyone can check the comments in the article, or here https://osf.io/u7ewz/ https://osf.io/u7ewz/ Lowe mentions: "Objections have been raised to that trial’s use of an oral suspension formulation, I should note.". But by reading the linked article we can see that there is much more to note: "In the statistical analysis subsection of the article, the authors acknowledged 2 RCT issues: i) they modified the primary end point to time from randomization to complete resolution of symptoms within the 21-day follow-up period and ii) a labeling error occurred between September 29 and October 15, 2020, resulting in an unblinded protocol during this time frame." Seems weird that while everyone is pushing hard on the limitations of the studies that favor IVM, we get a pass for this study by making it so influential.

spadez 5y ago

This is a response to the NIH/WHO judgement from FLCCC Alliance. I think it should be considered as well. https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-response-to-all-national-and-international-health-agency-recommendations-against-ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea... https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FLCCC-Statement-on-Weak-Guidance-on-Ivermectin-from-WHO-March-31-2021.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/F...

yehosef 5y ago

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/i-dont-know-of-a-bigger-story-in-the-world-right-now-than-ivermectin-ny-times-best-selling-author.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/i-dont-know-of-a-big...