5 ms·

You are not only wrong, but you are being rude about it. https://archive.is/s0zkr https://archive.is/s0zkr

by blhack 5y ago

seattle_spring 5y ago
Yes, if you pool effect estimates from tiny, very badly conducted trials you get positive effects. Some of the studies in your linked MA have even been retracted / unpublished. If there are any peer reviewed studies from reputable institutions I still have yet to see them.
- blhack 5y ago
  Perhaps you should stop looking on "realcovid19miracledrugproof.net" and "truthaboutivermectin.org/msm_lies.html". I don't think any of those are good places to get a sense of the current scientific literature.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    Considering every response so far has shared links from the sites I was intending to poke fun at...
- Covzire 5y ago
  Great, let's get Google to stop silencing doctors from telling us this. There is no reason for a tech oligarchy to ban our medical community from having open dialogues, even if they're completely right on this, nothing good will come of it in the long term.
- bookofsand 5y ago
  We all do. The aggressive politicization of the issue makes (made?) it impossible for reputable institutions to even consider running such studies. The Ivermectin signal has been around since 07/2020. It's a shame it took more than a year for reputable institutions to even consider touching the subject. https://c19ivermectin.com https://c19ivermectin.com. I thought we are in a world-wide emergency crisis, where we are tapping all available resources as soon as humanly possible. There is some hope for reputable answers from https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investigated-possible-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investiga..., yet to be completed.
- loonster 5y ago
  We've known about the potential effectiveness of the drug for 1.5 years and In Vitro effectiveness for 1.2 years. The lack of large completed trials for an off patent medicine should be a black eye for the NIH.
  - cwyers 5y ago
    There's a ton of off-patent medicines. You can't do large-scale trials for all of them, there literally aren't enough COVID patients to do a large-scale trial for every off-patent medicine that exists. You have to have some selection criteria. Ivermectin is an anti-parasite drug. It is not an anti-viral. There is no theory for a mechanism of action for why it would be effective against COVID. There is some laboratory evidence that Ivermectin at very high concentrations can inhibit replication of COVID-19 and other viruses. The problem with this is that extrapolating from those concentrations to a dosing regimen means a dose of Ivermectin far, far higher than the dosage of Ivermectin given in humans. So, without sufficient evidence, there's no compelling reason to do a large trial of Ivermectin.
    - jstgord 5y ago
      There _is_ some evidence for Ivermectin being a broad spectrum anti-viral.. discussed here : https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/9/9/2100 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/9/9/2100
- gus_massa 5y ago
  Someone posted these links about Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin a few days ago. It's nice that someone is collecting them. > https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct (Figure 7, scroll down) > https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr Hydroxychloroquine: My personal opinion is that it's just report and publication bias. Ivermectin: My personal opinion is that it looks more interesting, but after taking a deeper look, it's full of small studies that are not pre-registered where a fluke created an optimistic result that is not statistically significant. (I'd just drop most/all of them.) The main difference is that Hydroxychloroquine has a few big studies with a few thousand of patients, but with Ivermectin all the RCT studies have at most a few hundred patients. Complete thread with the original links and more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27691080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27691080 It's also interesting that I pick the first RCT in the site about Ivermectin https://c19ivermectin.com/chowdhury.html https://c19ivermectin.com/chowdhury.html , and it actually compares Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. It is listed as a success in the Ivermectin site but it's not listed a failure in the Hydroxychloroquine site. Anyway, it's small and not statistically significant, so I'd not read too many conclusions from it.

You are not only wrong, but you are being rude about it. https://archive.is/s0zkr https://archive.is/s0zkr

by blhack 5y ago

You are not only wrong, but you are being rude about it. https://archive.is/s0zkr https://archive.is/s0zkr

Yes, if you pool effect estimates from tiny, very badly conducted trials you get positive effects. Some of the studies in your linked MA have even been retracted / unpublished. If there are any peer reviewed studies from reputable institutions I still have yet to see them.

blhack 5y ago
Perhaps you should stop looking on "realcovid19miracledrugproof.net" and "truthaboutivermectin.org/msm_lies.html". I don't think any of those are good places to get a sense of the current scientific literature.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  Considering every response so far has shared links from the sites I was intending to poke fun at...
Covzire 5y ago
Great, let's get Google to stop silencing doctors from telling us this. There is no reason for a tech oligarchy to ban our medical community from having open dialogues, even if they're completely right on this, nothing good will come of it in the long term.
bookofsand 5y ago
We all do. The aggressive politicization of the issue makes (made?) it impossible for reputable institutions to even consider running such studies. The Ivermectin signal has been around since 07/2020. It's a shame it took more than a year for reputable institutions to even consider touching the subject. https://c19ivermectin.com https://c19ivermectin.com. I thought we are in a world-wide emergency crisis, where we are tapping all available resources as soon as humanly possible. There is some hope for reputable answers from https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investigated-possible-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investiga..., yet to be completed.
loonster 5y ago
We've known about the potential effectiveness of the drug for 1.5 years and In Vitro effectiveness for 1.2 years. The lack of large completed trials for an off patent medicine should be a black eye for the NIH.
- cwyers 5y ago
  There's a ton of off-patent medicines. You can't do large-scale trials for all of them, there literally aren't enough COVID patients to do a large-scale trial for every off-patent medicine that exists. You have to have some selection criteria. Ivermectin is an anti-parasite drug. It is not an anti-viral. There is no theory for a mechanism of action for why it would be effective against COVID. There is some laboratory evidence that Ivermectin at very high concentrations can inhibit replication of COVID-19 and other viruses. The problem with this is that extrapolating from those concentrations to a dosing regimen means a dose of Ivermectin far, far higher than the dosage of Ivermectin given in humans. So, without sufficient evidence, there's no compelling reason to do a large trial of Ivermectin.
  - jstgord 5y ago
    There _is_ some evidence for Ivermectin being a broad spectrum anti-viral.. discussed here : https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/9/9/2100 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/9/9/2100
gus_massa 5y ago
Someone posted these links about Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin a few days ago. It's nice that someone is collecting them. > https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct (Figure 7, scroll down) > https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr Hydroxychloroquine: My personal opinion is that it's just report and publication bias. Ivermectin: My personal opinion is that it looks more interesting, but after taking a deeper look, it's full of small studies that are not pre-registered where a fluke created an optimistic result that is not statistically significant. (I'd just drop most/all of them.) The main difference is that Hydroxychloroquine has a few big studies with a few thousand of patients, but with Ivermectin all the RCT studies have at most a few hundred patients. Complete thread with the original links and more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27691080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27691080 It's also interesting that I pick the first RCT in the site about Ivermectin https://c19ivermectin.com/chowdhury.html https://c19ivermectin.com/chowdhury.html , and it actually compares Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. It is listed as a success in the Ivermectin site but it's not listed a failure in the Hydroxychloroquine site. Anyway, it's small and not statistically significant, so I'd not read too many conclusions from it.