7 ms·

The problem I saw with the Ivermectin metastudies (which I did a fair amount of research on given that people close to me had decided to employ it as a prophyla

by trts 5y ago

The problem I saw with the Ivermectin metastudies (which I did a fair amount of research on given that people close to me had decided to employ it as a prophylactic against Covid) was that the people who did the metanalyses were trained to read the results rather than grapple with the methodology and statistics. None of the study results were robust, but many of the study outcomes were positive. So they were counting up positive outcomes and saying that more often than not, it was evidence that Ivermectin was effective. This is a good means of generating a hypothesis, but a bad means of generating a conclusion. Most of these studies were not in any way controlled or comparable in their conditions, and some had a very low number of observations. It didn't seem plausible that the data could be aggregated together. It will be very interesting to see the results of the larger RCTs underway. Regardless of the outcome there _has_ to be a lesson for at least some people who arrived at fervent conclusions about what a miracle/scam this particular drug is. Unfortunately it seems unlikely that it will be a lesson that endures.

dboreham 5y ago
In my mind, there is also underlying all this the idea that if a drug actually works, then there will be many doctors going on CNN to say that it totally works; that they're super excited by their patients recovering. In other words, the effect should be profound. If the effect is marginal, why bother, even if it is a real measurable effect in well conducted trials? I mean : that doctors observe that some therapy or drug works well is step 1, then step 2 is to conduct trials to prove conclusively that step 1 wasn't a statistical fluke. In this case we seem to have it backwards : we first observed that there is an effect in vitro, then ran trials which proved nothing much, then extracted noise from that data to prove whatever we wanted.
- colordrops 5y ago
  Determining effectiveness through the number or media reach of doctors talking about it is the opposite of science.
- bb88 5y ago
  > ...then there will be many doctors going on CNN to say that it totally works... I don't think we can trust "doctors" anymore. There were a bunch of doctors (aka America's Frontline Doctors) that were trying to go around and say Ivermectin works. Same with HCQ. The "needle rape" doctor in Idaho said the vaccine is dangerous, but Ivermectin saves lives. In Idaho, I assure you, doctor's are prescribing patients Ivermectin in the ICU. If it really did work Boise would be the groundswell of Ivermectin miracles, where people are walking out of the ICU, ending the crisis. Unfortunately, that's not happening. ICU's are primarily being freed up from death now it seems like. ICU's are in the high 90's capacity. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2021/09/22/today-in-idaho-hospitals-and-covid-19-patients-er-visits-and-capacity/ https://idahocapitalsun.com/2021/09/22/today-in-idaho-hospit...
- Fjolsvith 5y ago
  This might be true except for the fact that news outlets follow a script to push a narrative (and CNN is not exempted from this): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI

by trts 5y ago

dboreham 5y ago

In my mind, there is also underlying all this the idea that if a drug actually works, then there will be many doctors going on CNN to say that it totally works; that they're super excited by their patients recovering. In other words, the effect should be profound. If the effect is marginal, why bother, even if it is a real measurable effect in well conducted trials? I mean : that doctors observe that some therapy or drug works well is step 1, then step 2 is to conduct trials to prove conclusively that step 1 wasn't a statistical fluke. In this case we seem to have it backwards : we first observed that there is an effect in vitro, then ran trials which proved nothing much, then extracted noise from that data to prove whatever we wanted.

colordrops 5y ago
Determining effectiveness through the number or media reach of doctors talking about it is the opposite of science.
bb88 5y ago
> ...then there will be many doctors going on CNN to say that it totally works... I don't think we can trust "doctors" anymore. There were a bunch of doctors (aka America's Frontline Doctors) that were trying to go around and say Ivermectin works. Same with HCQ. The "needle rape" doctor in Idaho said the vaccine is dangerous, but Ivermectin saves lives. In Idaho, I assure you, doctor's are prescribing patients Ivermectin in the ICU. If it really did work Boise would be the groundswell of Ivermectin miracles, where people are walking out of the ICU, ending the crisis. Unfortunately, that's not happening. ICU's are primarily being freed up from death now it seems like. ICU's are in the high 90's capacity. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2021/09/22/today-in-idaho-hospitals-and-covid-19-patients-er-visits-and-capacity/ https://idahocapitalsun.com/2021/09/22/today-in-idaho-hospit...
Fjolsvith 5y ago
This might be true except for the fact that news outlets follow a script to push a narrative (and CNN is not exempted from this): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI