5 ms·

This is an example of when people say, "I'll do my own research" I often roll my eyes. First, about the site you gave, here's what BMJ has to say about this si

This is an example of when people say, "I'll do my own research" I often roll my eyes. First, about the site you gave, here's what BMJ has to say about this site: "Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/ https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.36" Furthermore, in good faith I went and randomly looked at one of the studies cited that sourced a reasonable journal: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27469 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27469 The c19ivermectin site misrepresents the results from the study. To quote the actual study: "However, a mortality benefit was not seen with ivermectin treatment before and after PSM (p values = 0.07 and 0.11, respectively). ICU admission, and intubation rate were not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.49, and p = 1.0, respectively). No differences were found between groups regarding the length of hospital stay, ICU admission, intubation rate, and in-hospital mortality." Additionally the study notes: "The ivermectin group was more likely to have bacterial pneumonia complications compared to the control group (43% vs. 23%, p = 0.02). Eight patients had a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis in the ivermectin group, and the ivermectin group more frequently received therapeutic anticoagulation therapy than the control group. In addition, 13 patients had acute kidney injury in the ivermectin group." The website you provided has a very biased take on just the one study I looked at. It's hard for me to take it seriously as an unbiased meta-analysis of ivermectin.

jamesblonde 5y ago
This is cherry picking at its worst. I found one bad study from 78! studies. Therefore, I will ignore all studies. Even worse, none of your double blind RCTs are multi-site western studies. So, I will ignore all of them. Do you know what? After 2 years. 2 years, there has not been even one WESTERN double blind RCT of Ivermectin for Covid that has reported its data. Not one. There are 3 ongoing - Oxford (paused now, because they cannot get supply - what a joke), Covid-OUT (reporting in maybe 2 months), and NIH (reporting in 2023). The Together trial finished in August, but they are still sitting on the data - why? Besides those trials, there are 87! studies from lots of countries. One really good observational study with ~200k participants (120k in the treatment group) from Itaj Brazil for IVM as prophylaxis. Results for propensity matched data were hospitalizations down by 85%, and for non propensity matched 50%. But nobody has written about it. The same goes for Fluvoxamine, which has great data. As does Melatonin and Curcumin. Lots of treatment and prophylaxis options out there. And yes, i am vaxxed. But I despair at this notion that it is vax or treatment. I chose both. Reference: https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis...
- kenjackson 5y ago
  I randomly picked the first study of a journal id heard of. I’m not going to read all 78. It’s not cherry picking when you do that.
  - jamesblonde 5y ago
    Irrespective of whether it's random or cherry picked, you can't discount a mountain of evidence from N=1. That is the playbook Big Pharma have succeeded with so far. Find one trial with evidence of fraud (El-Gazaar DBRCT) and then discount all other clinical trials on IVM for Covid. The media bought it hook, line, and sinker.
    - kenjackson 5y ago
      I absolutely can discount a mountain of evidence from N=1. If you bring me 10 candidates for a job and say they can all type 100 WPM and I say, "OK, give me that guy in the middle" and give him a typing test and he types 20 WPM, I'm discounting the rest of the candidates because I no longer trust the source. Furthermore, the issue isn't the study. It's how they misrepresented the results of the study. Another example, it would be like if you give me a paper and I go to the middle of the paper and it says, "Nazi's saved millions of Jews from the rein of terror of the Hawaiians" -- I'm going to discount the paper because I think the editorializing is misleading. I don't need to read the rest of the paper -- unless you tell me that the section I read was meant to be satire. This is why credibility matters. If that site was Nature and I looked at one study and there was something wrong with it I might be inclined to look at a few more randomly. But given that people have a finite amount of time, when you present something it better be accurate. And when it is accurate, you'll gain credibility. But if the first thing I look at is misleading -- I don't have a lot of patience to wade through data ... especially when other sources also say that you're representations are biased.

jamesblonde 5y ago

This is cherry picking at its worst. I found one bad study from 78! studies. Therefore, I will ignore all studies. Even worse, none of your double blind RCTs are multi-site western studies. So, I will ignore all of them. Do you know what? After 2 years. 2 years, there has not been even one WESTERN double blind RCT of Ivermectin for Covid that has reported its data. Not one. There are 3 ongoing - Oxford (paused now, because they cannot get supply - what a joke), Covid-OUT (reporting in maybe 2 months), and NIH (reporting in 2023). The Together trial finished in August, but they are still sitting on the data - why? Besides those trials, there are 87! studies from lots of countries. One really good observational study with ~200k participants (120k in the treatment group) from Itaj Brazil for IVM as prophylaxis. Results for propensity matched data were hospitalizations down by 85%, and for non propensity matched 50%. But nobody has written about it. The same goes for Fluvoxamine, which has great data. As does Melatonin and Curcumin. Lots of treatment and prophylaxis options out there. And yes, i am vaxxed. But I despair at this notion that it is vax or treatment. I chose both. Reference: https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis...

kenjackson 5y ago
I randomly picked the first study of a journal id heard of. I’m not going to read all 78. It’s not cherry picking when you do that.
- jamesblonde 5y ago
  Irrespective of whether it's random or cherry picked, you can't discount a mountain of evidence from N=1. That is the playbook Big Pharma have succeeded with so far. Find one trial with evidence of fraud (El-Gazaar DBRCT) and then discount all other clinical trials on IVM for Covid. The media bought it hook, line, and sinker.
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    I absolutely can discount a mountain of evidence from N=1. If you bring me 10 candidates for a job and say they can all type 100 WPM and I say, "OK, give me that guy in the middle" and give him a typing test and he types 20 WPM, I'm discounting the rest of the candidates because I no longer trust the source. Furthermore, the issue isn't the study. It's how they misrepresented the results of the study. Another example, it would be like if you give me a paper and I go to the middle of the paper and it says, "Nazi's saved millions of Jews from the rein of terror of the Hawaiians" -- I'm going to discount the paper because I think the editorializing is misleading. I don't need to read the rest of the paper -- unless you tell me that the section I read was meant to be satire. This is why credibility matters. If that site was Nature and I looked at one study and there was something wrong with it I might be inclined to look at a few more randomly. But given that people have a finite amount of time, when you present something it better be accurate. And when it is accurate, you'll gain credibility. But if the first thing I look at is misleading -- I don't have a lot of patience to wade through data ... especially when other sources also say that you're representations are biased.