5 ms·

Just curious, and not trying to start a flamewar, but as someone who's just reading and trying to be better informed, how is this 3 minute old comment already g

by 0des 5y ago

Just curious, and not trying to start a flamewar, but as someone who's just reading and trying to be better informed, how is this 3 minute old comment already greyed out? Would someone who has downvoted and perhaps sees what I might not be seeing about this post's personal experience care to explain why they think this is wrong?

swader999 5y ago
N=1 is a fair criticism. But still. The studies listed on this page are from reputable journals. Dig in. https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/
- wiether 5y ago
  Hello https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s...
  - swader999 5y ago
    That study was apparently submitted by a blogger posing as a medical student. There's 62 and counting other studies out there. I linked to some of them above.
    - walterbell 5y ago
      When this is all over, I look forward to forensic investigations of fraudulent medical publications which had the effect of advancing or slowing specific political viewpoints. E.g. one strawman submarine story can be used to drown dozens of legitimate stories. Or one flawed negative study requires 100+ doctors to object before the claims are withdrawn. We need to learn from these unfortunate incidents and improve our systemic defenses. Fortunately, digital trails provide much data that can be used to build better defenses.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      The problem with that study is that it's widely cited and powerful; it is apparently responsible for the majority of all attributed positive effect for ivermectin in meta-analyses. The fact that it's author was fraudulent doesn't mitigate that!
      - swader999 5y ago
        The link I provided discussed that study and its impact and claimed that it certainly doesn't reverse any meta studies.
        tptacek 5y ago
        I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Any meta-study that included the data from that paper has obviously been corrupted by it. And it was widely used in those studies.
        tptacek 5y ago
        Just by way of example, the FLCCC's comprehensive review article, which you cited favorably above, includes dozens of citations to the now-withdrawn Algazzar study.
        srtjstjsj 5y ago
        Do "citations" affect the data? Citations are just for anti-plagiarism and for clout building, not science.
        gandalfgreybeer 5y ago
        If they are studies that are performing meta-analyses (and most of the studies citing the fraudulent article are), yes.
        srtjstjsj 5y ago
        Do meta analyses not control for the influence of outlier studies? Could I just make up a phony result with 100000000x alleged effect and drown out all other studies in every meta analysis?
chipotle_coyote 5y ago
I didn't downvote -- the pro-ivermectin comments from swader999 are being made in good faith, and from what I can tell, the FLCCC's position is being held in good faith, too, not from a political or conspiratorial position -- but it's at least worth taking a look at criticisms of the FLCCC's methods that are out there. The big criticisms of ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 are largely criticisms of the way trials have been conducted. An actual quote from Pierre Kory, one of the FLCCC's founders, is, "We disagree with how most practice evidence-based medicine. We think they are way too biased toward randomized controlled trials." https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 And, it's possible that Dr. Kory's dislike of randomized controlled trials is in part because when they're run on his treatment methods, they don't seem to back them up: "Adults with mild Covid-19 who took a five-day course of the anti-parasite, tropical disease drug ivermectin showed no significant reduction in time to symptom resolution compared to patients taking placebo in a randomized, single-site clinical trial from Columbia." https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-antiparasite-drug-ivermectin-shows-no-benefit https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-antiparasite-drug-... The MedPage Today article notes that this isn't the first time this group of physicians' approaches have run into this "they think it works but the RCTs don't support it" problem, either. "Marik is known in the field for developing the HAT protocol for sepsis…a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and thiamine. His group's 2017 observational study of the protocol, published in CHEST, garnered excitement about the combination. But that hasn't been borne out in subsequent trials, including [names three studies]. Marik said the group adapted the protocol for COVID-19, using a more potent steroid and adding an anticoagulant, along with other elements." So, this is controversial because they came up with a protocol for sepsis that hasn't been shown to work in randomized controlled trials, modified that protocol to treat Covid-19 in a way that so far doesn't seem to have been shown to work in randomized controlled trials, either, and are arguing that what this actually demonstrates is that randomized controlled trials suck. Maybe they're right, or maybe future RCTs will support this treatment as other doctors run similar trials. But, at slightly more than first glance, it seems to me that caution about ivermectin being a wonder drug in this context is warranted.

by 0des 5y ago

swader999 5y ago

N=1 is a fair criticism. But still. The studies listed on this page are from reputable journals. Dig in. https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

wiether 5y ago
Hello https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s...
- swader999 5y ago
  That study was apparently submitted by a blogger posing as a medical student. There's 62 and counting other studies out there. I linked to some of them above.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    When this is all over, I look forward to forensic investigations of fraudulent medical publications which had the effect of advancing or slowing specific political viewpoints. E.g. one strawman submarine story can be used to drown dozens of legitimate stories. Or one flawed negative study requires 100+ doctors to object before the claims are withdrawn. We need to learn from these unfortunate incidents and improve our systemic defenses. Fortunately, digital trails provide much data that can be used to build better defenses.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    The problem with that study is that it's widely cited and powerful; it is apparently responsible for the majority of all attributed positive effect for ivermectin in meta-analyses. The fact that it's author was fraudulent doesn't mitigate that!
    - swader999 5y ago
      The link I provided discussed that study and its impact and claimed that it certainly doesn't reverse any meta studies.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Any meta-study that included the data from that paper has obviously been corrupted by it. And it was widely used in those studies.
        tptacek 5y ago
        Just by way of example, the FLCCC's comprehensive review article, which you cited favorably above, includes dozens of citations to the now-withdrawn Algazzar study.
        srtjstjsj 5y ago
        Do "citations" affect the data? Citations are just for anti-plagiarism and for clout building, not science.
        gandalfgreybeer 5y ago
        If they are studies that are performing meta-analyses (and most of the studies citing the fraudulent article are), yes.
        srtjstjsj 5y ago
        Do meta analyses not control for the influence of outlier studies? Could I just make up a phony result with 100000000x alleged effect and drown out all other studies in every meta analysis?

chipotle_coyote 5y ago

I didn't downvote -- the pro-ivermectin comments from swader999 are being made in good faith, and from what I can tell, the FLCCC's position is being held in good faith, too, not from a political or conspiratorial position -- but it's at least worth taking a look at criticisms of the FLCCC's methods that are out there. The big criticisms of ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 are largely criticisms of the way trials have been conducted. An actual quote from Pierre Kory, one of the FLCCC's founders, is, "We disagree with how most practice evidence-based medicine. We think they are way too biased toward randomized controlled trials." https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 And, it's possible that Dr. Kory's dislike of randomized controlled trials is in part because when they're run on his treatment methods, they don't seem to back them up: "Adults with mild Covid-19 who took a five-day course of the anti-parasite, tropical disease drug ivermectin showed no significant reduction in time to symptom resolution compared to patients taking placebo in a randomized, single-site clinical trial from Columbia." https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-antiparasite-drug-ivermectin-shows-no-benefit https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-antiparasite-drug-... The MedPage Today article notes that this isn't the first time this group of physicians' approaches have run into this "they think it works but the RCTs don't support it" problem, either. "Marik is known in the field for developing the HAT protocol for sepsis…a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and thiamine. His group's 2017 observational study of the protocol, published in CHEST, garnered excitement about the combination. But that hasn't been borne out in subsequent trials, including [names three studies]. Marik said the group adapted the protocol for COVID-19, using a more potent steroid and adding an anticoagulant, along with other elements." So, this is controversial because they came up with a protocol for sepsis that hasn't been shown to work in randomized controlled trials, modified that protocol to treat Covid-19 in a way that so far doesn't seem to have been shown to work in randomized controlled trials, either, and are arguing that what this actually demonstrates is that randomized controlled trials suck. Maybe they're right, or maybe future RCTs will support this treatment as other doctors run similar trials. But, at slightly more than first glance, it seems to me that caution about ivermectin being a wonder drug in this context is warranted.