4 ms·
> 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:
by 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 agoYou'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...
- shaicoleman 5y agoYou can find the same study in ResearchGate. The domain name doesn't change the content. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346034534_Study_of_the_Efficacy_and_Safety_of_Topical_Ivermectin_Iota-_Carrageenan_in_the_Prophylaxis_against_COVID-19_in_Health_Personnel https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346034534_Study_of_... The ivmmeta website is a collection of public information, you can always refer to the original study/journal if you don't find it trustworthy. It's not a lack of data. Ivermectin already has many times more data (including RCTs) compared to other WHO approved treatments (Ivermectin vs. Remdesivir, Ivermectin for COVID-19 vs Ivermectin for Scabies). https://ivmmeta.com/#table_whoapproval https://ivmmeta.com/#table_whoapproval