4 ms·
Key points > 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users > In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optiona
by srcreigh 5y ago
Key points
> 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users
> In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day. In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment
> There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).
> Missing data from patients were clarified with patients or relatives directly, via phone or in person, by the investigators. Since this is a citywide program, all recorded data must have matched the exact number of COVID-19 cases and deaths of the city.
> An important conservative bias was present. Major risk factors for severe COVID-19 and mortality due to COVID-19, including aging, diabetes, and hypertension, were more present among ivermectin users, which may have underestimated the benefits of ivermectin
The only questionable part of this I can find is a small unfounded semi negative comment about vaccines near the end.
> lack of effectiveness of vaccines in real-life all-cause mortality analyses to date
Vaccines correlate with 5.6x reduction in hospitalization and 12x reduction in ICU cases in Ontario as of today (Jan 22 2022) so not sure where that comes from.
However their results still seem pretty clear that ivermectin helps.
I'm curious if ivermectin and vaccines compound in effectiveness. 2x effective prevention could speed things up a lot.
- tptacek 5y agoThey don't even know who took ivermectin. The city they studied the ivermectin protocol in had the highest rate of COVID mortalities in the state during the ivermectin protocol. Here's a long Twitter thread shredding this research (read to the end and follow the links, it gets more damning as it goes). https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1471320883461378048 https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1471320883461378048
- srcreigh 5y agoThanks. Not sure if this critique counts as shredding. It's mostly A) needs to meet XYZ higher quality bar B) small mistakes in computations. In this world anything can be put to a higher bar and small mistakes are expected.. etc Is anyone aware of any ivermectin study which meets the quality bar, has no mistakes and concludes that it doesn't work? That would shred the paper to me. As the critic you link says > It might be useful as the very first piece of research into a medication I wonder if/how the 2nd study will happen.
- notahacker 5y agoI'm not sure a study reporting no under 30 patient deaths in one column and under 30 patient deaths in the treated data is a "small mistake" in a study of patient mortality...
- jjeaff 5y ago>They don't even know who took ivermectin. It's worse than that. The city distributed the tablets and so they know how many participants came in and picked them up. Apparently, the study claims that around 200k people took the tablets, but only 136k picked up the tablets. Then after 2 weeks, only 95k picked up their next set of pills. Then by half way through the period studied in this paper, only 8k people picked up their medicine. None of that is noted in the study. That would appear to completely invalidate the whole study. https://twitter.com/sean_purdy/status/1470410070819319809?t=fQ_O5maMzf-_cBr205WwQw&s=19 https://twitter.com/sean_purdy/status/1470410070819319809?t=...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- srcreigh 5y agoI would like to know whether the people took ivermectin or not maybe via survey. The drug was very popular in Brazil, I don't imagine people would be absolutely required to go to the certain place to pick it up.
- dionian 5y agoI would love to see more studies and research. But unfortunately there seems to be somewhat of "science hesitancy" for certain therapeutics.
- jjeaff 5y agoI think there is only hesitancy because resources are limited and there are thousands of drugs out there to try. IVM has already received far more attention and resources that it likely deserves and there are lots of other drugs to study and other diseases to cure.