3 ms·

I did not say that... I just said it was possible. Personally, I think people should be listening to their doctors and not the television.

by gfosco 5y ago

TaupeRanger 5y ago
Where is the "television" here? This article simply reports on the fraudulent paper, which casts doubt on the use of ivermectin which has been recently touted in right wing circles. There is no other evidence to support its use. Hopefully, one's doctor would be aware of the current best scientific analysis.
- gfosco 5y ago
  The comment I replied to was pointing out how this article is cherry-picking a single study to argue with, and I agreed... There is quite a bit of other evidence to support its use, such as [1]. I think it's pretty well summarized by MedpageToday: "Findings are positive, but critics still want a large randomized controlled trial" [2] [1] https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/f... [2] https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93485 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9348...
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    About [1]: It's not a randomized controlled trial. For example if a patient arrives to the hospital and s/he is so ill that must be intubated immediately and can't sign the paperwork for the study or can't take oral pill [X] then s/he go to the no-ivermectin group. Does this increase the chances of death in the no-ivermectin group? Another example, if someone takes ivermectin and recovers, but is readmitted later, then s/he is excluded [Y]. Does this increase or decrease How does this increase the chances of death in the no-ivermectin group? About the first question: probably yes, but you may disagree. About the second: I have no idea, perhaps it artificially decrease the death rate in the no-ivermectin group, I have no idea. So, it's very difficult to be sure that you are comparing the outcomes correctly without a randomized controlled trial. About [2]: > Hill and colleagues assessed 24 randomized trials totaling 3,328 patients that involved some type of control, whether it was standard of care or another therapy. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 400 participants. Eight of the studies had been published, nine were preprints, six were unpublished results shared for the analysis, and one was reported on a trial registry website. I think that now there are like ~34 trials. If you look at them, most of them are small and no statistically significant. The problem is reporting and publication bias. Studies with a good/favorable outcome are published. Studies with a bad outcome are uninteresting and discarded. For example https://c19ivermectin.com/chowdhury.html https://c19ivermectin.com/chowdhury.html compares Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. It is listed as a success in the https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr but it's not listed a failure in the https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct site. [X] From the study: > Patients in the ivermectin group received at least one oral dose of ivermectin at 200 μg/kg in addition to usual clinical care. [Y] From the study: > Patients who had at least two separate admissions placing them in both groups also were excluded.

I did not say that... I just said it was possible. Personally, I think people should be listening to their doctors and not the television.

by gfosco 5y ago

I did not say that... I just said it was possible. Personally, I think people should be listening to their doctors and not the television.

TaupeRanger 5y ago

Where is the "television" here? This article simply reports on the fraudulent paper, which casts doubt on the use of ivermectin which has been recently touted in right wing circles. There is no other evidence to support its use. Hopefully, one's doctor would be aware of the current best scientific analysis.

gfosco 5y ago
The comment I replied to was pointing out how this article is cherry-picking a single study to argue with, and I agreed... There is quite a bit of other evidence to support its use, such as [1]. I think it's pretty well summarized by MedpageToday: "Findings are positive, but critics still want a large randomized controlled trial" [2] [1] https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/f... [2] https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93485 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9348...
- gus_massa 5y ago
  About [1]: It's not a randomized controlled trial. For example if a patient arrives to the hospital and s/he is so ill that must be intubated immediately and can't sign the paperwork for the study or can't take oral pill [X] then s/he go to the no-ivermectin group. Does this increase the chances of death in the no-ivermectin group? Another example, if someone takes ivermectin and recovers, but is readmitted later, then s/he is excluded [Y]. Does this increase or decrease How does this increase the chances of death in the no-ivermectin group? About the first question: probably yes, but you may disagree. About the second: I have no idea, perhaps it artificially decrease the death rate in the no-ivermectin group, I have no idea. So, it's very difficult to be sure that you are comparing the outcomes correctly without a randomized controlled trial. About [2]: > Hill and colleagues assessed 24 randomized trials totaling 3,328 patients that involved some type of control, whether it was standard of care or another therapy. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 400 participants. Eight of the studies had been published, nine were preprints, six were unpublished results shared for the analysis, and one was reported on a trial registry website. I think that now there are like ~34 trials. If you look at them, most of them are small and no statistically significant. The problem is reporting and publication bias. Studies with a good/favorable outcome are published. Studies with a bad outcome are uninteresting and discarded. For example https://c19ivermectin.com/chowdhury.html https://c19ivermectin.com/chowdhury.html compares Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. It is listed as a success in the https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr but it's not listed a failure in the https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct site. [X] From the study: > Patients in the ivermectin group received at least one oral dose of ivermectin at 200 μg/kg in addition to usual clinical care. [Y] From the study: > Patients who had at least two separate admissions placing them in both groups also were excluded.