4 ms·

I've seen other similar results, and I don't share this skepticism. I can't find the exact study, but here's one on hospital staff in Argentina: https://www.cur

I've seen other similar results, and I don't share this skepticism. I can't find the exact study, but here's one on hospital staff in Argentina: https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807-prophylactic-role-of-ivermectin-in-severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807-prophylactic-role-of-i... I just don't see how parasites would explain all these results. I do see how monetary incentives would play into maligning them though.

ncmncm 5y ago
Scurrilous accusations violate posting rules.
- lambdaba 5y ago
  I'm sorry, I wasn't suggesting YOU had monetary incentives, this is just a tech news forum.
gus_massa 5y ago
Note that the original article and the article you posted are not randomized controlled trails. Does the people that accept to take Ivermectin more cautious than the people that don't? Does young people more likely to try? There are too many variables and it's just too hard to know without a RCT. Also, the problem with these types of studies is that bad outcomes are sometimes not published. Nobody want to write an article with the title "We used Ivermectin and we killed an additional statistical significant number of coworkers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_bias For a RCT it's necessary more paperwork and authorizations and ideally preregistering. So that increase the chance of that they must write the final paper. Also, as the PG noted the "peer review" of this site is not the traditional peer review of a normal journal. For example, the title says "Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects" but later it says "a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis". The main part of the difference is that they report in the title the total number of inhabitants, but for the analysis they use only the ones that have more than 18 years old. It's not a smoking gun, but at least it's a small red flag.
- lambdaba 5y ago
  I don't know, I just see a pattern here, I know as much as every other person that anecdote != data, and correlation != causation, but... I don't know, I don't think these studies are worthless either I found the other study I wanted to reference: https://media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-journal-of-biomedical-research-safety-adn-efficacy-iota-carrageenan-and-ivermectin.pdf https://media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-journal-of-biomedi... > No patients of the 788 treated with IVERCAR tested positive for CoVid 19 during the study. Again, I don't know, but it smells like SOMETHING What I "believe" about this is prophylaxis, I think this is why there are no results once symptoms are really apparent. This might be why the point about Ivermectin being antiviral only at very high doses doesn't hold, maybe it provides protection when there is only a tiny exposure to the virus. Heck, there's even a result circulating that cannabis was protective... Who knows?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    We have pretty good reasons to believe that CBD, in the absence of THC, is protective for people who have contracted COVID: it keeps them out of ICU. Unfortunately almost all retail products that claim to have CBD don't. CBD from the pharmacy, which does, costs more than people usually want to pay.
    - lambdaba 5y ago
      Are you sure about that? I've bought CBD isolate several times from (decently vetted) online vendors... pretty sure it was pure CBD Still, pretty amazing CBD would "block" entry of the virus in cells, or something like that (I only read the headlines, not pretending to understand)... But maybe this is somehow how Ivermectin can have antiviral properties at normal doses too. I suppose CBD once the infection sets in is less effective (though surely harmless).
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        How did you verify it was pure CBD? Do you have equipment that would enable such verification? Seeming to have the effect you expect from CBD is not reliable. CBD's effect on COVID-19 is to suppress the over-reaction of the immune system causing congestion and breathing problems. It does not interfere with the viral life cycle. So, it is useless to prevent COVID-19 infection. In vitro analysis suggested that, in principle, ivermectin ought to help block COVID-19 virus in several ways. That generated interest to see if it would help. The more reliable each study has been, the less effect it has shown. Something working great in test tubes (and even in mice) and failing when prescribed to actual people is totally unsurprising to anybody who works in medical research. Something promising that actually turns out to work clinically is always astonishing. So, discounting promotion by people do lack long experience interpreting medical research results is not corrupt SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH. It is simple honest reporting, is doing you a favor, and you should welcome it.

ncmncm 5y ago

Scurrilous accusations violate posting rules.

lambdaba 5y ago
I'm sorry, I wasn't suggesting YOU had monetary incentives, this is just a tech news forum.

gus_massa 5y ago

Note that the original article and the article you posted are not randomized controlled trails. Does the people that accept to take Ivermectin more cautious than the people that don't? Does young people more likely to try? There are too many variables and it's just too hard to know without a RCT. Also, the problem with these types of studies is that bad outcomes are sometimes not published. Nobody want to write an article with the title "We used Ivermectin and we killed an additional statistical significant number of coworkers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_bias For a RCT it's necessary more paperwork and authorizations and ideally preregistering. So that increase the chance of that they must write the final paper. Also, as the PG noted the "peer review" of this site is not the traditional peer review of a normal journal. For example, the title says "Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects" but later it says "a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis". The main part of the difference is that they report in the title the total number of inhabitants, but for the analysis they use only the ones that have more than 18 years old. It's not a smoking gun, but at least it's a small red flag.

lambdaba 5y ago
I don't know, I just see a pattern here, I know as much as every other person that anecdote != data, and correlation != causation, but... I don't know, I don't think these studies are worthless either I found the other study I wanted to reference: https://media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-journal-of-biomedical-research-safety-adn-efficacy-iota-carrageenan-and-ivermectin.pdf https://media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-journal-of-biomedi... > No patients of the 788 treated with IVERCAR tested positive for CoVid 19 during the study. Again, I don't know, but it smells like SOMETHING What I "believe" about this is prophylaxis, I think this is why there are no results once symptoms are really apparent. This might be why the point about Ivermectin being antiviral only at very high doses doesn't hold, maybe it provides protection when there is only a tiny exposure to the virus. Heck, there's even a result circulating that cannabis was protective... Who knows?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  We have pretty good reasons to believe that CBD, in the absence of THC, is protective for people who have contracted COVID: it keeps them out of ICU. Unfortunately almost all retail products that claim to have CBD don't. CBD from the pharmacy, which does, costs more than people usually want to pay.
  - lambdaba 5y ago
    Are you sure about that? I've bought CBD isolate several times from (decently vetted) online vendors... pretty sure it was pure CBD Still, pretty amazing CBD would "block" entry of the virus in cells, or something like that (I only read the headlines, not pretending to understand)... But maybe this is somehow how Ivermectin can have antiviral properties at normal doses too. I suppose CBD once the infection sets in is less effective (though surely harmless).
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      How did you verify it was pure CBD? Do you have equipment that would enable such verification? Seeming to have the effect you expect from CBD is not reliable. CBD's effect on COVID-19 is to suppress the over-reaction of the immune system causing congestion and breathing problems. It does not interfere with the viral life cycle. So, it is useless to prevent COVID-19 infection. In vitro analysis suggested that, in principle, ivermectin ought to help block COVID-19 virus in several ways. That generated interest to see if it would help. The more reliable each study has been, the less effect it has shown. Something working great in test tubes (and even in mice) and failing when prescribed to actual people is totally unsurprising to anybody who works in medical research. Something promising that actually turns out to work clinically is always astonishing. So, discounting promotion by people do lack long experience interpreting medical research results is not corrupt SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH. It is simple honest reporting, is doing you a favor, and you should welcome it.