4 ms·

The flccc unequivocally states that ivermectin given alone is not known to be effective. That's why their protocols are not "give ivermectin alone", in any dose

The flccc unequivocally states that ivermectin given alone is not known to be effective. That's why their protocols are not "give ivermectin alone", in any dose. Even the protocols they recommend that people can follow at home are not "take ivermectin". Moreover, as to the claim that the flccc is recommending ivermectin with no proof it works; they have 60+ peer-reviewed studies showing that it works, a couple un-reviewed studies by avowed skeptics which show that it does nothing, and zero studies ever in the history of the drug showing it to be harmful. That is better than can be said for any other purported treatment for COVID.

javagram 5y ago
> The flccc unequivocally states that ivermectin given alone is not known to be effective Without a randomized controlled trial, they have nothing but speculation as to what is effective or not. > Moreover, as to the claim that the flccc is recommending ivermectin with no proof it works; they have 60+ peer-reviewed studies showing that it works Note that meta-analysis of those published studies shows zero knowable effect for Ivermectin. https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/INFECTN_ivermectin-preventing-and-treating-covid-19 https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/INFECTN_ivermectin-prevent...
- unanswered 5y ago
  > Without a randomized controlled trial, they have nothing but speculation as to what is effective or not. Like this one? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v... Or you can go find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's). I hope you didn't bury those goalposts too deep as you'll need to move them again. Meanwhile the meta-review you cite is the one that managed to "find" only 18 trials and those somehow just happened to be the ones showing neutral results; no one has yet figured out how they somehow accidentally missed all the studies with positive findings cited by the FLCCC. Maybe in a few years there will be a peer-reviewed RCT explaining this apparent selective blindness, which is the most alarming epidemic happening right now. Look, I don't know what to make of all the conflicting evidence. But I sure as hell know what to make of all the people lying about the evidence.
  - IAmEveryone 5y ago
    Oh, so now preprints that haven’t passed peer-review are good enough? You can’t even keep your criteria straight two comments in row… Quote; “ This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”
    - unanswered 5y ago
      Oh look there they go, byeeeee goalposts.
  - javagram 5y ago
    > Like this one? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v... Or you can go find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's). Did you read the top comment on your link? “There are a number of concerns with the methodology and consistency in this study: [. . .] might be true that Ivermectin does reduce viral shedding time in mild to moderate COVID-19. However this study is not rigorous enough, includes amendments which could have introduced bias, and has methodological issues. In my opinion it should not be accepted as good evidence that ivermectin reduces viral loads and could reduce isolation time in patients with COVID-19.“ > hope you didn't bury those goalposts too deep as you'll need to move them again. My point is FLCCC assertion is meaningless. Why cite to them and not direct to trials or meta analysis of trials? > Meanwhile the meta-review you cite is the one that managed to "find" only 18 trials As with any high quality meta analysis it describes their search strategy for finding and selecting studies for inclusion: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... Notice how in your own two posts you’ve switched the number dramatically? ‘they have 60+ peer-reviewed studies showing that it works’ vs now ‘find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's).’ This is a good demonstration of how easily the number can be changed when you use a different search method and less or more filtering.
IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
I seriously don’t get what peoples’ brains are infected with to get invested in some random drug to the point where they start making a fool of themselves spouting such non-sense and just making it up as they go along…? Example: “… zero studies ever in the history of the drug showing it to be harmful” Ivermectin, as any drug that does anything, ever, comes with a list of side effects. See https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/ivermectin-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064397?p=1 https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/ivermectin-oral... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Adverse_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Adverse_effects Note that this list is as old as the drug, and nobody serious is disputing it. Not even your FLCWHATEVER, or they wouldn’t have a reason to specify an upper limit for their recommended dose. Nor the manufacturers. And yes, “side effect” is the same as “being (potentially) harmful”. One study linked from your FLACCY site is at https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... . It really should be retracted because it also relies on the fake data from Egypt, but anyway. It says: “In a study that combined results from trials including more than 50,000 patients, serious events occurred in less than 1%” 1% of “serious events” sounds pretty bad? It’s somewhere on the order of COVID’s CFR? I guess getting so invested into some deworming drug is arbitrary enough to be less harmful than tying your identity to hating women or democracy or whatever the alternative is. But it’s that pointlessness that somehow makes it infuriating in its own way. We had Chloroquine and Ivermectin. What’s next? Kool-Aid would be my favorite. At least it’s easier to spell.
- loopz 5y ago
  When you're strongly against something, one may become vulnerable to the same kind of misinformation and biases. Important to research all sides, and weigh experts and professionals more. Considering them as fools, is most likely sign of Dunning-Kruger.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >1% of “serious events” sounds pretty bad? It’s somewhere on the order of COVID’s CFR? I'm not a doctor or a statistician, but at the risk of stating what might be obvious - 1% chance of serious harm is much more tolerable with a medicine given to the sick as opposed to a vaccine given to everybody. What the denominator is, is important.

javagram 5y ago

> The flccc unequivocally states that ivermectin given alone is not known to be effective Without a randomized controlled trial, they have nothing but speculation as to what is effective or not. > Moreover, as to the claim that the flccc is recommending ivermectin with no proof it works; they have 60+ peer-reviewed studies showing that it works Note that meta-analysis of those published studies shows zero knowable effect for Ivermectin. https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/INFECTN_ivermectin-preventing-and-treating-covid-19 https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/INFECTN_ivermectin-prevent...

unanswered 5y ago
> Without a randomized controlled trial, they have nothing but speculation as to what is effective or not. Like this one? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v... Or you can go find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's). I hope you didn't bury those goalposts too deep as you'll need to move them again. Meanwhile the meta-review you cite is the one that managed to "find" only 18 trials and those somehow just happened to be the ones showing neutral results; no one has yet figured out how they somehow accidentally missed all the studies with positive findings cited by the FLCCC. Maybe in a few years there will be a peer-reviewed RCT explaining this apparent selective blindness, which is the most alarming epidemic happening right now. Look, I don't know what to make of all the conflicting evidence. But I sure as hell know what to make of all the people lying about the evidence.
- IAmEveryone 5y ago
  Oh, so now preprints that haven’t passed peer-review are good enough? You can’t even keep your criteria straight two comments in row… Quote; “ This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”
  - unanswered 5y ago
    Oh look there they go, byeeeee goalposts.
- javagram 5y ago
  > Like this one? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v... Or you can go find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's). Did you read the top comment on your link? “There are a number of concerns with the methodology and consistency in this study: [. . .] might be true that Ivermectin does reduce viral shedding time in mild to moderate COVID-19. However this study is not rigorous enough, includes amendments which could have introduced bias, and has methodological issues. In my opinion it should not be accepted as good evidence that ivermectin reduces viral loads and could reduce isolation time in patients with COVID-19.“ > hope you didn't bury those goalposts too deep as you'll need to move them again. My point is FLCCC assertion is meaningless. Why cite to them and not direct to trials or meta analysis of trials? > Meanwhile the meta-review you cite is the one that managed to "find" only 18 trials As with any high quality meta analysis it describes their search strategy for finding and selecting studies for inclusion: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... Notice how in your own two posts you’ve switched the number dramatically? ‘they have 60+ peer-reviewed studies showing that it works’ vs now ‘find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's).’ This is a good demonstration of how easily the number can be changed when you use a different search method and less or more filtering.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

I seriously don’t get what peoples’ brains are infected with to get invested in some random drug to the point where they start making a fool of themselves spouting such non-sense and just making it up as they go along…? Example: “… zero studies ever in the history of the drug showing it to be harmful” Ivermectin, as any drug that does anything, ever, comes with a list of side effects. See https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/ivermectin-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064397?p=1 https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/ivermectin-oral... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Adverse_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Adverse_effects Note that this list is as old as the drug, and nobody serious is disputing it. Not even your FLCWHATEVER, or they wouldn’t have a reason to specify an upper limit for their recommended dose. Nor the manufacturers. And yes, “side effect” is the same as “being (potentially) harmful”. One study linked from your FLACCY site is at https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... . It really should be retracted because it also relies on the fake data from Egypt, but anyway. It says: “In a study that combined results from trials including more than 50,000 patients, serious events occurred in less than 1%” 1% of “serious events” sounds pretty bad? It’s somewhere on the order of COVID’s CFR? I guess getting so invested into some deworming drug is arbitrary enough to be less harmful than tying your identity to hating women or democracy or whatever the alternative is. But it’s that pointlessness that somehow makes it infuriating in its own way. We had Chloroquine and Ivermectin. What’s next? Kool-Aid would be my favorite. At least it’s easier to spell.

loopz 5y ago
When you're strongly against something, one may become vulnerable to the same kind of misinformation and biases. Important to research all sides, and weigh experts and professionals more. Considering them as fools, is most likely sign of Dunning-Kruger.
perl4ever 5y ago
>1% of “serious events” sounds pretty bad? It’s somewhere on the order of COVID’s CFR? I'm not a doctor or a statistician, but at the risk of stating what might be obvious - 1% chance of serious harm is much more tolerable with a medicine given to the sick as opposed to a vaccine given to everybody. What the denominator is, is important.