5 ms·

Ivermectin fails another Covid trial

5 points by WithinReason 5y ago

Pinegulf 5y ago
Pity, yet we must follow where the evidence leads. I suspect PRINCIPLE trial (https://www.principletrial.org/ https://www.principletrial.org/) will yield enough to the most skeptical.
- nojokes 5y ago
  As far I am aware of, this study could progress forever till the end of pandemic and then conclude that it was effective all along (or perhaps not). They have not published any stopping criteria for the trial so far.
  - Pinegulf 5y ago
    Well, they have published number of studies already. (principletrial.org/results) Some with some effect. I don't see why Ivermactin would be exception.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      For some reason they have dragged this study for quite long time without any interim results.
wrp 5y ago
I have no preference regarding the Ivermectin business except to see that a controversial issue is settled in most people's minds, on a valid evidential basis. I think reporting like this actually pushes that resolution farther into the future. Maybe the Malaysian study would be convincing to a lot of people if explained sympathetically, but the first half of this article is about politics. That's no way to gain the ear of people who are suspicious of your motives to begin with. It is really, really rare now to see anyone discuss Ivermectin (and most other COVID-related topics) without some reference to politics.
- jfengel 5y ago
  That's no way to gain the ear of people who are suspicious of your motives to begin with. There is no way to gain the ear of people who are suspicious of your motives. At some point, you need to stop worrying about them and instead worry about how you're going to deal with it. Ivermectin for COVID is an inherently political topic. It never made any sense as a remedy, and even its makers said not to use it. There was never any reason to accept that it might work. It was touted solely by people who wanted to avoid taking responsibility for their actions -- no masking, no vaccinations, no shutdowns, and would grasp at any straw for a miracle cure. That "suspicion" long predates COVID, and applies to many other topics. That partisanship is a fact of life. The medicine here is long since settled -- no, de-wormer doesn't help unless you've got worms. Everything since then is waiting for people to stop insisting otherwise for purely ideological reasons. I'd turn this around -- rather than telling me to find some way to be super-duper-nicer to them, how about them recognizing that they're Just Plain Wrong, again, and maybe stop automatically assuming every word out of my mouth is a socialist plot. Until that happens, nothing I say is going to help, no matter how I phrase it. Blaming my phrasing -- on the grounds that I'm the only one who might listen to you -- isn't going to help.
  - wrp 5y ago
    > Ivermectin...never made any sense as a remedy... At the beginning of the pandemic, people looked around for drugs that had previously shown broad antiviral activity. Ivermectin and chloroquine were among those drugs that showed a positive effect during in vitro studies, indicating that clinical study would be worthwhile. Chloroquine was subject to proper studies, found to be ineffective, and by the end of 2020 had pretty much faded away as a concern. Ivermectin, on the other hand, was immediately made a political issue. Rational inquiry was discouraged and after two years the controversy still continues. > how about them recognizing that they're Just Plain Wrong How willing would you be to recognize that you are Just Plain Wrong about this? It goes both ways.
    - jfengel 5y ago
      I'm prepared to be wrong. It happens. All the time. Being wrong is the essence of being a scientist. We call it "hypothesis revision". People aren't always good at letting go of dearly-held truths -- and I am a person -- but I consider it a failing, not a point of pride. So yeah, I could be Just Plain Wrong. But I have, at least, tried really, really hard to take that possibility into account. It's not impossible that I've failed, but neither will I accept the argument (which I have heard many times) that I have to give the possibility equal weight solely on the grounds that somebody else wants me to, and their ignorance on the topic is equal to the overwhelming number of actual scientists who agree with me. I cannot prove, of course, that I am willing. But I am at least willing to say that I'm willing, and give what evidence I can that I'm sincere about that. I do not believe that to be true of those who will continue to tout ivermectin despite the linked article, on top of so many other articles.

5 points by WithinReason 5y ago

Pity, yet we must follow where the evidence leads. I suspect PRINCIPLE trial (https://www.principletrial.org/ https://www.principletrial.org/) will yield enough to the most skeptical.

nojokes 5y ago
As far I am aware of, this study could progress forever till the end of pandemic and then conclude that it was effective all along (or perhaps not). They have not published any stopping criteria for the trial so far.
- Pinegulf 5y ago
  Well, they have published number of studies already. (principletrial.org/results) Some with some effect. I don't see why Ivermactin would be exception.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    For some reason they have dragged this study for quite long time without any interim results.

wrp 5y ago

I have no preference regarding the Ivermectin business except to see that a controversial issue is settled in most people's minds, on a valid evidential basis. I think reporting like this actually pushes that resolution farther into the future. Maybe the Malaysian study would be convincing to a lot of people if explained sympathetically, but the first half of this article is about politics. That's no way to gain the ear of people who are suspicious of your motives to begin with. It is really, really rare now to see anyone discuss Ivermectin (and most other COVID-related topics) without some reference to politics.

jfengel 5y ago
That's no way to gain the ear of people who are suspicious of your motives to begin with. There is no way to gain the ear of people who are suspicious of your motives. At some point, you need to stop worrying about them and instead worry about how you're going to deal with it. Ivermectin for COVID is an inherently political topic. It never made any sense as a remedy, and even its makers said not to use it. There was never any reason to accept that it might work. It was touted solely by people who wanted to avoid taking responsibility for their actions -- no masking, no vaccinations, no shutdowns, and would grasp at any straw for a miracle cure. That "suspicion" long predates COVID, and applies to many other topics. That partisanship is a fact of life. The medicine here is long since settled -- no, de-wormer doesn't help unless you've got worms. Everything since then is waiting for people to stop insisting otherwise for purely ideological reasons. I'd turn this around -- rather than telling me to find some way to be super-duper-nicer to them, how about them recognizing that they're Just Plain Wrong, again, and maybe stop automatically assuming every word out of my mouth is a socialist plot. Until that happens, nothing I say is going to help, no matter how I phrase it. Blaming my phrasing -- on the grounds that I'm the only one who might listen to you -- isn't going to help.
- wrp 5y ago
  > Ivermectin...never made any sense as a remedy... At the beginning of the pandemic, people looked around for drugs that had previously shown broad antiviral activity. Ivermectin and chloroquine were among those drugs that showed a positive effect during in vitro studies, indicating that clinical study would be worthwhile. Chloroquine was subject to proper studies, found to be ineffective, and by the end of 2020 had pretty much faded away as a concern. Ivermectin, on the other hand, was immediately made a political issue. Rational inquiry was discouraged and after two years the controversy still continues. > how about them recognizing that they're Just Plain Wrong How willing would you be to recognize that you are Just Plain Wrong about this? It goes both ways.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    I'm prepared to be wrong. It happens. All the time. Being wrong is the essence of being a scientist. We call it "hypothesis revision". People aren't always good at letting go of dearly-held truths -- and I am a person -- but I consider it a failing, not a point of pride. So yeah, I could be Just Plain Wrong. But I have, at least, tried really, really hard to take that possibility into account. It's not impossible that I've failed, but neither will I accept the argument (which I have heard many times) that I have to give the possibility equal weight solely on the grounds that somebody else wants me to, and their ignorance on the topic is equal to the overwhelming number of actual scientists who agree with me. I cannot prove, of course, that I am willing. But I am at least willing to say that I'm willing, and give what evidence I can that I'm sincere about that. I do not believe that to be true of those who will continue to tout ivermectin despite the linked article, on top of so many other articles.