Ivermectin: balance of evidence shows no benefit against Covid-19

[JangoFett]

Dosages that are already known to be unlikely to make a marked difference. I will post a pretty thorough dosage analysis that explains why most of the trials currently accepted for reporting on show no significant result. - because the dosage regime is just not at the right levels to do anything.

When I post it, check out the date when that highly technical study was done.

Is it the Cochrane study's date you're referring to, now?

 

[JangoFett]

This. We already say this numbers sentiment from the one honorable Israeli doctor. It's not so bad ...

Every death is a tragedy. Real people with loved ones, breadwinners. Lives forever changed. It's easy taking up pedantic positions relying on other people who may or may not have your best interests at heart. We saw how this turned out in other issues.

I suspect many of these types will also discredit faith and religion - while perversely doing exactly that.

Background Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic agent, also has anti-viral properties. Our aim was to assess whether ivermectin can shorten the viral shedding in patients at an early-stage of COVID-19 infection.
Methods The double-blinded trial compared patients receiving ivermectin 0·2 mg/kg for 3 days vs. placebo in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab was obtained at recruitment and then every two days. Primary endpoint was reduction of viral-load on the 6th day (third day after termination of treatment) as reflected by Ct level>30 (non-infectious level). The primary outcome was supported by determination of viral culture viability.
Results Eighty-nine patients were eligible (47 in ivermectin and 42 in placebo arm). Their median age was 35 years. Females accounted for 21·6%, and 16·8% were asymptomatic at recruitment. Median time from symptom onset was 4 days. There were no statistical differences in these parameters between the two groups.
On day 6, 34 out of 47 (72%) patients in the ivermectin arm reached the endpoint, compared to 21/ 42 (50%) in the placebo arm (OR 2·62; 95% CI: 1·09-6·31). In a multivariable logistic-regression model, the odds of a negative test at day 6 was 2.62 time higher in the ivermectin group (95% CI: 1·06–6·45). Cultures at days 2 to 6 were positive in 3/23 (13·0%) of ivermectin samples vs. 14/29 (48·2%) in the placebo group (p=0·008).

Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic agent, also has anti-viral properties. Our aim was to assess whether ivermectin can shorten the viral shedding in patients at an early-stage of COVID-19 infection. Methods The double-blinded trial compared patients receiving ivermectin 0·2 mg/kg for 3...

www.medrxiv.org

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412879199501787140

 

[Geoff.D]

The whole point of a meta-analysis is to sift the data, have very clear parimeters about which studies meet the criteria to qualify. What you call cherry-picking is actually a good thing - only good studies with proper methodologies, sufficient sample sizes, correct type of studies(RCT vs case-control vs cross-sectional etc) should be included. This is basic evidence based medicine and science 101.

As I said before, the process and protocol far outweigh the outcome. And ESPECIALLY IF you check the dosages of the 14 trials in the Cochrane report and then compare that with what is known to have an effect. Then The evidence of why the trials failed to show a statistically significant outcome in favour of the use of IVM is clearly apparent.
Significantly, however, the Cochrane report does NOT choose to write off IVM, just recommends more proper trials are required and significant and relevant dosages. At least the Cochrane evaluators know more about how to do their job than you lot.

 

[buka001]

As I said before, the process and protocol far outweigh the outcome. And ESPECIALLY IF you check the dosages of the 14 trials in the Cochrane report and then compare that with what is known to have an effect. Then The evidence of why the trials failed to show a statistically significant outcome in favour of the use of IVM is clearly apparent.
Significantly, however, the Cochrane report does NOT choose to write off IVM, just recommends more proper trials are required and significant and relevant dosages. At least the Cochrane evaluators know more about how to do their job than you lot.

What is the dosage that is known to have an effect?

 

[pouroverguy]

As I said before, the process and protocol far outweigh the outcome. And ESPECIALLY IF you check the dosages of the 14 trials in the Cochrane report and then compare that with what is known to have an effect. Then The evidence of why the trials failed to show a statistically significant outcome in favour of the use of IVM is clearly apparent.
Significantly, however, the Cochrane report does NOT choose to write off IVM, just recommends more proper trials are required and significant and relevant dosages. At least the Cochrane evaluators know more about how to do their job than you lot.

Obviously they know more than I do. They also know far far more than you.

 

[pouroverguy]

Back to trolling, I see.

And just when I was beginning to think that perhaps I had misjudged you.

Tsek.

You seem to not know what trolling means.

 

[JangoFett]

You seem to not know what trolling means.

You intentionally shifting the burden of proof and turning it into an ad-hominem while pretending to be interested sincerely in the outcome of any of the studies is a textbook case of trolling.

And I'm done playing your stupid little game. Go find someone else's time to waste.

 

[Geoff.D]

Why are you appropriately critical of anecdotal evidence to an adverse reaction to IVM, but recieve claims about deaths from the vaccine without any scrutiny or critical analysis?

Suffering from a severe dose of failed comprehension again? Show me a decent analysis of SA deaths due to vaccines that is in the public domain if you can. All we have is a broken promise of 28 deaths that are /or have undergone autopsies. There are no stats available for SA. and frankly, I am happy to watch the rest of you tear each other part about stats in other countries. And watch the silly and incorrect analysis going on.

 

[pouroverguy]

You intentionally shifting the burden of proof and turning it into an ad-hominem while pretending to be interested sincerely in the outcome of any of the studies is a textbook case of trolling.

And I'm done playing your stupid little game. Go find someone else's time to waste.

The cochrane group are one of, if not the most well-respected groups of scientists that analyse and understand evidence-based medicine. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove them wrong, if you're actually so knowledgeable and understand medicine so well.

 

[pouroverguy]

You intentionally shifting the burden of proof and turning it into an ad-hominem while pretending to be interested sincerely in the outcome of any of the studies is a textbook case of trolling.

And I'm done playing your stupid little game. Go find someone else's time to waste.

Calls any statement he doesn't like or doesn't suit his agendas, trolling - and repeatedly comes on to the thread just to make snarky comments and throw insults. Textbook troll in my book.

 

[JohnStarr]

So did you win your forum game?

Skippy is as skippy does.

I don't know. Forum games aren't as fun as Mass Effect. Did you?

 

[buka001]

Suffering from a severe dose of failed comprehension again? Show me a decent analysis of SA deaths due to vaccines that is in the public domain if you can. All we have is a broken promise of 28 deaths that are /or have undergone autopsies. There are no stats available for SA. and frankly, I am happy to watch the rest of you tear each other part about stats in other countries. And watch the silly and incorrect analysis going on.

Talking about how you accepted some guys claim about deaths in Germany, without asking the same type of critical question to see if the report was valid.

 

[JangoFett]

Calls any statement he doesn't like or doesn't suit his agendas, trolling - and repeatedly comes on to the thread just to make snarky comments and throw insults. Textbook troll in my book.

You've given zero evidence that the Cochrane study that you nominated is relevant to the Israeli study I raised and asked people what their objections to it is.

In other words, I have proof that you're engaging in bad faith, which is sufficient justification to deem someone's behaviour 'trolling'. Now climb back under your dishonest rock, troll.

 

[Geoff.D]

Yeah and considering that your average GP is not involved in the field of drug discovery, for them to go prescribe medicine that has not been certified for a specific ailment is negligent - whether they have the patient's best interest at heart or not.

Yup the "do no harm" maxim. That is their right. And it is our right as the public to go and find a doctor who has a different definition of "Do no harm". And that does not mean either group of doctors are wrong, just using a different philosophy.

 

[JohnStarr]

Probably because people don't want pen pushers with no medical expertise making judgement calls as to what sorts of treatments doctors can recommend to their patients in good conscience.

Howdy's criticisms are on point, you're more interested in liability issues than you are in patient health.


Your participation in this thread strikes me as dishonest.

Dude, I'm honestly not phased what strikes you on the forums. At all.

Honest answer required from you: Do you accept any studies stating that IVM doesn't work? Or are those, and the professor from Groote Schuur, all wrong and agenda-based?

Then I'll leave you alone. This is getting boring now. Trying to argue from a logical viewpoint with people who only see 1 side of a coin is draining.

 

[JangoFett]

The cochrane group are one of, if not the most well-respected groups of scientists that analyse and understand evidence-based medicine. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove them wrong, if you're actually so knowledgeable and understand medicine so well.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.[8][9]

Come back when you know how to corroborate your opinion in a non-fallacious manner.

 

[JangoFett]

Dude, I'm honestly not phased what strikes you on the forums. At all.

Honest answer required from you: Do you accept any studies stating that IVM doesn't work? Or are those, and the professor from Groote Schuur, all wrong and agenda-based?

Then I'll leave you alone. This is getting boring now. Trying to argue from a logical viewpoint with people who only see 1 side of a coin is draining.

I asked for any studies which were deemed conclusive. I'm still waiting for someone to present me with one.

 

[pouroverguy]

Dude, I'm honestly not phased what strikes you on the forums. At all.

Honest answer required from you: Do you accept any studies stating that IVM doesn't work? Or are those, and the professor from Groote Schuur, all wrong and agenda-based?

Then I'll leave you alone. This is getting boring now. Trying to argue from a logical viewpoint with people who only see 1 side of a coin is draining.

Anything that suits the agenda is automatically right, and anything that doesn't is automatically wrong.

 

[Geoff.D]

Saying that you only trust "reliable" results when nobody's willing to put down the money for the comprehensive trials is a great way to hide the effectiveness of a treatment. And so far you've done nothing to corroborate the claim that they claimed their study was conclusive, so as far as I can tell, you're attempting to argue your case using deception.

It reminds me of a case in the USA, where the entire medical profession decided there was nothing that could help a young girl with her problem until she found a doctor who did a simple non-invasive test and then prescribed her fairly large daily dosages of NaCl. -------

 

[pouroverguy]

I asked for any studies which were deemed conclusive. I'm still waiting for someone to present me with one.

Nobody is arguing that there is conclusive evidence that IVM will not work. Cochrane themselves have left it open to change if new evidence comes about.