4 ms·

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 ar

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
      If you don't like ivmmeta.com, have a look at this published meta analysis of ivermectin for covid. It reaches the same conclusions. And yes, there is also a cochrane meta analysis that cuts out all by 9 DBRCTs (ha!), still is positive, but not stat-sig. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/...
    - jamesblonde 5y ago
      The reason why many of the studies are poorly written and have methodological limitations is that many are done by clinicians in 2nd world countries. Not one large DBRCT from the west has reported on IVM for Covid yet. Let that sink in.
the_why_of_y 5y ago
Here somebody took the time to look at 30 of these studies. It is an interesting read. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...
- jamesblonde 5y ago
  That's a well-written hit piece by Scott Alexander. This isn't big tobacco of old who transparently lie. This article gives short biased summaries of all papers, and leaves out all the good results of many papers. Even well run studies, like Chaccour, that shown stat sign reduction in cough and ansomnia in only N=24, he spins as a negative result. And the Italian study that just barely misses stat sig reduction in viral load - well he doesn't tell you that, does he? Scott also believes the benefit from IVM is because of worm reduction. The Ijatai study with >120k subjects is an area of Brazil with no worms, proving that is transparent nonsense.
jamesblonde 5y ago
Way to go mods with the censorship, hiding these comments. History will not be on your side.

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
    If you don't like ivmmeta.com, have a look at this published meta analysis of ivermectin for covid. It reaches the same conclusions. And yes, there is also a cochrane meta analysis that cuts out all by 9 DBRCTs (ha!), still is positive, but not stat-sig. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/...
  - jamesblonde 5y ago
    The reason why many of the studies are poorly written and have methodological limitations is that many are done by clinicians in 2nd world countries. Not one large DBRCT from the west has reported on IVM for Covid yet. Let that sink in.

the_why_of_y 5y ago

Here somebody took the time to look at 30 of these studies. It is an interesting read. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

jamesblonde 5y ago
That's a well-written hit piece by Scott Alexander. This isn't big tobacco of old who transparently lie. This article gives short biased summaries of all papers, and leaves out all the good results of many papers. Even well run studies, like Chaccour, that shown stat sign reduction in cough and ansomnia in only N=24, he spins as a negative result. And the Italian study that just barely misses stat sig reduction in viral load - well he doesn't tell you that, does he? Scott also believes the benefit from IVM is because of worm reduction. The Ijatai study with >120k subjects is an area of Brazil with no worms, proving that is transparent nonsense.

jamesblonde 5y ago

Way to go mods with the censorship, hiding these comments. History will not be on your side.