4 ms·

Sounds like ivermectin is going through something similar. This off-patent, cheap, and safe drug is able to significantly reduce COVID-19 symptoms [0], and is e

Sounds like ivermectin is going through something similar. This off-patent, cheap, and safe drug is able to significantly reduce COVID-19 symptoms [0], and is extremely likely to be a potent prophylactic and treatment for COVID-19 [1], to the extent that the third wave in North America wouldn't have happened if it was used. The inventor, Satoshi Omura, won a Nobel Prize for inventing the drug in 2015, and tried to convince Merck (the original manufacturer) for many months to conduct an ivermectin trial for COVID-19, to no avail. On July 1st, he finally found a Japanese company called Kowa to charitably conduct a clinical trial for ivermectin, without Merck's help. Amazing right? But what response does Omura get from Western media? Quickly, his announcement video was deleted from YouTube [2]. You cannot find any English news about the Kowa trial being conducted. A few days ago, Omura was interviewed about ivermectin for the first time, on Yahoo Japan News [3]. Quoting him (using non-ideal Google Translate) > "My impression of WHO is that I feel sorry for being caught in a dilemma. Until now, I have only seen bright light in my life as a researcher. But this time, I learned for the first time after reading this article that shadows also exist in the world... Ivermectin is no longer a scientific issue, but a political issue." --Satoshi Omura It seems like big tech's misinformation crusade is biting us and science in the ass. [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33495752/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33495752/ [1]: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/of... [2]: https://twitter.com/michaelcapuzzo/status/1410626769166733317 https://twitter.com/michaelcapuzzo/status/141062676916673331... [3]: https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/92c85ad9476f56a6fc51daec5654cb57b184fa75 https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/92c85ad9476f56a6fc51daec56...

kobieyc 5y ago
Honestly I was surprised not to see any mention of IVM in the original post. Many of the points in the original article apply to what's going on with systemic reviews of IVM - see for example allegations of misconduct/fraud by theguardian to Elgazzar's big IVM study 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... It does also bring into question the validity of Tess Lowrie's systematic review of ivermectin efficacy. Also, your systematic review [1] includes the Elgazzar as "low risk" of bias... when in fact Elgazzar had GLARING errors. It also makes me question the competence of everyone involved in this systematic review that they can't find these glaring errors but some random med student can.
- rubatuga 5y ago
  I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own: https://ivmmeta.com https://ivmmeta.com You really cannot trust the raw risk estimates that they give on this site. But it's the most comprehensive list of trials for ivermectin there is, and a place for you to form your own opinion. Elgazzar has already been removed as a data point.
  - closewith 5y ago
    > I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own: Surely the point of the OP's post is that the reader can't evaluate these studies on their own. At least not without undertaking the kind of review and background research that is not reasonable for even the expert reader. Not to mention the irony of accusing the GP of cherry-picking when the site you linked is a cherry-picked list of trials curated by anonymous alleged HCWs.
    - rubatuga 5y ago
      First, don't underestimate people's ability to read some papers on Hacker News. It's not that hard. And second, what's wrong with anonymous alleged HCWs? Seems like the intersection of politics and science has gotten out of hand if you ask me. Also, if you could please find me a well-laid out superset of the articles in ivmmeta.com, I will gladly replace the link.
      - closewith 5y ago
        > First, don't underestimate people's ability to read some papers on Hacker News. The point of the parent article is that it's impossible to assess a paper by reading it. There's no way to, for example, determine that studies on which a paper relies were fictional without further research. Ability doesn't matter - there isn't sufficient information in the paper alone to make an assessment. That is the crux of the crisis. > And second, what's wrong with anonymous alleged HCWs? Seems like the intersection of politics and science has gotten out of hand if you ask me. Also, if you could please find me a well-laid out superset of the articles in ivmmeta.com, I will gladly replace the link. It's hard to believe this comment is made in good faith. You yourself insinuated that another poster was cherry-picking, which is exactly what you did in your response. I can only assume you are trolling or otherwise commenting in bad faith?
Animats 5y ago
Here's a list of ivermectin trials on COVID-19.[1] It does seem to have some effect, cutting recovery time in mild cases by 20% or so. But that's not anything close to "would eliminate the third wave". This study [2] from the early days of the epidemic indicated that the patients receiving ivermectin needed invasive ventilation much earlier. Which is not a good result. [1] https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/clinical-data/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/ant... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34215210/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34215210/

kobieyc 5y ago

Honestly I was surprised not to see any mention of IVM in the original post. Many of the points in the original article apply to what's going on with systemic reviews of IVM - see for example allegations of misconduct/fraud by theguardian to Elgazzar's big IVM study 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... It does also bring into question the validity of Tess Lowrie's systematic review of ivermectin efficacy. Also, your systematic review [1] includes the Elgazzar as "low risk" of bias... when in fact Elgazzar had GLARING errors. It also makes me question the competence of everyone involved in this systematic review that they can't find these glaring errors but some random med student can.

rubatuga 5y ago
I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own: https://ivmmeta.com https://ivmmeta.com You really cannot trust the raw risk estimates that they give on this site. But it's the most comprehensive list of trials for ivermectin there is, and a place for you to form your own opinion. Elgazzar has already been removed as a data point.
- closewith 5y ago
  > I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own: Surely the point of the OP's post is that the reader can't evaluate these studies on their own. At least not without undertaking the kind of review and background research that is not reasonable for even the expert reader. Not to mention the irony of accusing the GP of cherry-picking when the site you linked is a cherry-picked list of trials curated by anonymous alleged HCWs.
  - rubatuga 5y ago
    First, don't underestimate people's ability to read some papers on Hacker News. It's not that hard. And second, what's wrong with anonymous alleged HCWs? Seems like the intersection of politics and science has gotten out of hand if you ask me. Also, if you could please find me a well-laid out superset of the articles in ivmmeta.com, I will gladly replace the link.
    - closewith 5y ago
      > First, don't underestimate people's ability to read some papers on Hacker News. The point of the parent article is that it's impossible to assess a paper by reading it. There's no way to, for example, determine that studies on which a paper relies were fictional without further research. Ability doesn't matter - there isn't sufficient information in the paper alone to make an assessment. That is the crux of the crisis. > And second, what's wrong with anonymous alleged HCWs? Seems like the intersection of politics and science has gotten out of hand if you ask me. Also, if you could please find me a well-laid out superset of the articles in ivmmeta.com, I will gladly replace the link. It's hard to believe this comment is made in good faith. You yourself insinuated that another poster was cherry-picking, which is exactly what you did in your response. I can only assume you are trolling or otherwise commenting in bad faith?

Animats 5y ago

Here's a list of ivermectin trials on COVID-19.[1] It does seem to have some effect, cutting recovery time in mild cases by 20% or so. But that's not anything close to "would eliminate the third wave". This study [2] from the early days of the epidemic indicated that the patients receiving ivermectin needed invasive ventilation much earlier. Which is not a good result. [1] https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/clinical-data/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/ant... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34215210/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34215210/