3 ms·
Sorry, I assumed you might actually read the study and not skim the overview. The main takeaway from the first is that the quality of available studies is extr
by evgen 5y ago
Sorry, I assumed you might actually read the study and not skim the overview. The main takeaway from the first is that the quality of available studies is extremely poor, there are significant confounding variables in almost all of the surveillance studies, and you can significantly change the outcome of the analysis by how you weight a few studies that have some of the highest bias but claim the largest effects. The second study shows that there are few downsides but almost no clinical effect.
There have been no quality studies since then, simply more meta-analysis and arguing over the weighting of the available garbage data. There are now two large-scale studies being conducted by real research groups. Happy to bet money that invermectin will have no real impact on case mortality.
If you want a meta-analysis that concludes invermectin is worthless, based upon a different weighting of the same studies, here you go: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839?searchresult=1 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...
- shaicoleman 5y ago> If you want a meta-analysis that concludes ivermectin is worthless, based upon a different weighting of the same studies, here you go: There's a critique of the above meta-analysis here, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be retracted: https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/od6he6/another_critique_of_the_shoddy_roman_et_al/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/od6he6/another_... That meta-analysis also includes the flawed López-Medina RCT: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27564574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27564574 > There are now two large-scale studies being conducted by real research groups. Happy to bet money that ivermectin will have no real impact on case mortality. It's highly likely that the Oxford PRINCIPLE trial will fail, because it's designed to fail. * Recruiting people up to 14 days after symptoms, when highest viral load is 2-3 days afterwards, and Ivermectin is most effective when treated on first symptoms. * No exclusion of vaccinated and those who already had the disease beforehand. * Treatment only for 3 days. * Lower than ideal dosage. Just because it's a large RCT, doesn't automatically make it a high quality study. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GIlG9Vx/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GI...
- evgen 5y agoNo, I will be surprised if the critique is retracted. The pro-invermectin tribe have gone all-in on this particular lie and no amount of science is going to change their minds. You are wrong. The invermectin-pushers are wrong. In a few months we will have you continuing to try to work the refs when study after study shows it has no significant effect, and by this time next year it will join hydroxychlroquine in the list of failed treatments pushed by politically-motivated actors.
- effie 5y agoRoman et al. has serious errors cf. https://twitter.com/BIRDGroupUK/status/1409899999308259332 https://twitter.com/BIRDGroupUK/status/1409899999308259332
- evgen 5y agoA group of politically-motivated actors who have an interest in the other side of the argument think they have found serious errors? Color me shocked. Sorry, but I don't believe anyone in the BIRD group. Guess we will wait for the real data to emerge and I can save my 'I told you so' for then.