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

[quovadis]

Of course. I looked it up in March ---
A typical medical fraternity ploy to glamourise everything they do to make it more mysterious to outsiders. A fancy term for a computer simulation. But here is the medical definition on PMC (I subscribe BTW)

Here is the link. in case you don't know what it means.

In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: methods for virtual ligand screening and profiling

Pharmacology over the past 100 years has had a rich tradition of scientists with the ability to form qualitative or semi-quantitative relations between molecular structure and activity in cerebro. To test these hypotheses they have consistently used traditional ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Or are you trying to suggest that pharmacological researchers must all abandon modern tools and revert to boiling concoctions on an open fire?

or, worse, are you suggesting that modern research facilities don't use the technique all the time? Which means most of the work done to represent the genome studies are now also invalid because of the techniques they use?
Scratching the bottom of the barrel as usual in a desperate attempt to discredit? Better watch out you are on the point of falling through the bottom.

No, I simply asked if you're happy with modelled data based on current understanding and assumptions to support determinations?

 

[Geoff.D]

No, I simply asked if you're happy with modelled data based on current understanding and assumptions to support determinations?

Why would I not be happy with it? Are you suggesting it is somehow not a suitable technique?

 

[quovadis]

Why would I not be happy with it? Are you suggesting it is somehow not a suitable technique?

So that's a yes? So why the vaccine hesitancy position then generally? And no, I'm not talking about your specific case but your view in general.

 

[Geoff.D]

So that's a yes? So why the vaccine hesitancy position then generally? And no, I'm not talking about your specific case but your view in general.

I am not vaccine-hesitant at all where did you get that from? Just pushing against the continual labelling of all who are hesitant as being anti-vax. And refusing to accept the moves to force vaccines on society when the evidence does not support the need for such draconian measures.

 

[buka001]

Of course. I looked it up in March ---

Dunning-Kruger in its most perfect form.

Looked up something 6 months ago, yet is confident enough to criticise actual doctors with decades of training and experience.

Dictionary definition. Should be screenshot and sent to Oxford.

 

[pouroverguy]

This meta-analysis of over 60 separate, individual scientific studies found most of the scientific studies listed show some improved outcomes with early treatment protocols for Ivermectin:

https://ivmmeta.com/

"Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 69% [54‑79%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials"

The data is open and anyone can read/study with their own eyes, look at the list of scientific studies, read the scientific studies, and they also provide the data for replicating the meta-analysis, so anyone can check with their own eyes. ("All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix")

The scientific studies are all listed for anyone to check with their own eyes.

Important: This does not show Ivermectin is 'definitely going to save you' if you have severe covid - it's not a 'magic bullet'. What it seems to show is that around 60 independent studies appear to show some increased likelihood of positive outcomes. (Also, it's based on early treatment protocols, meaning the benefit may only be if you start taking it as soon as you have symptoms, not when you're on death's door.)

It does appear to show that at least 60 separate, independent scientific studies found non-negligible chance of improved outcomes if correct early treatment protocols are followed.

They also address some of the controversies, and show that even if they entirely remove the most controversial Ivermectin studies from the meta-analysis it doesn't affect the overall result showing benefit (because it's a meta-analysis of about 64 studies, removing a few doesn't have much effect on the averages ... that's what a meta-analysis is, a study of the results of many other studies to show the overall result of what most of them show):

https://ivmmeta.com/#elgazzar

Let's try stick to real science, not mainstream media analyses. E.g. look at the list of scientific studies they list. Read the scientific studies. Check the methodology. Not just hand-wave the entire list of 60-something studies away as some seem to do.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THIS WEBSITE HAS BEEN DEBUNKED THOROUGHLY. Caps felt appropriate here.

How can someone talk about "real science" and then proceed to quote a website whose methodology is so so flawed.

For those that actually care about the science, here is the entire thread where a qualified expert tears this ridiculous website apart.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1422044335076306947

 

[CataclysmZA]

Let's not do this again.

 

[PsyWulf]

Let's try stick to real science, ... Read the scientific studies. Check the methodology. Not just hand-wave the entire list of 60-something studies away as some seem to do.

Assume you did yeah? Thus debunking the debunkings?

 

[quovadis]

I am not vaccine-hesitant at all where did you get that from?

Could've fooled me.

 

[Geoff.D]

Dunning-Kruger in its most perfect form.

Looked up something 6 months ago, yet is confident enough to criticise actual doctors with decades of training and experience.

Dictionary definition. Should be screenshot and sent to Oxford.

You never look anything up? Is that why you ignore things when it suits your motives and agenda?

Looked it up in March when I came across it in this study. I actually did not need to because it is pretty obvious anyway what it meant. I was more interested to see what it means to medical researchers.

And only a complete idiot does not look up and study new things he comes across. No one knows everything about everything.

You lot have a love affair with this stupid term and use it only for one single purpose and that is to denigrate those that are improving their knowledge base.

 

[Geoff.D]

Could've fooled me.

Obviously not that difficult to fool you.

 

[Turtle]

View attachment 1143382

Wow, you really did a good job listing the scientific methodological problems in the 60 odd scientific studies listed. I posted over 60 scientific studies with a meta-analysis, and data to reproduce the meta-analysis. And you posted a useless childish meme, like this is high school. This is a pandemic, people are dying, perhaps let the adults take charge. Look at the list of scientific studies, go through them, if there are problems with them show why those scientific studies are flawed. There are over 60 separate independent studies.

 

[greg0205]

Wow, you really did a good job listing the scientific methodological problems in the 60 odd scientific studies listed. I posted over 60 scientific studies with a meta-analysis, and data to reproduce the meta-analysis. And you posted a useless meme. This is a pandemic, people are dying, either grow up or let the adults take charge.

Um...

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

Full article: https://www.groundup.org.za/article/ivermectin-flops-largest-trial-yet/ While it’s too soon to say that the drug is useless, it has clearly been overhyped Ivermectin has been touted as the wonder drug solution to the Covid-19 crisis. Several trials have suggested it may have some...

mybroadband.co.za

Just sayin'.

 

[buka001]

You never look anything up? Is that why you ignore things when it suits your motives and agenda?

Looked it up in March when I came across it in this study. I actually did not need to because it is pretty obvious anyway what it meant. I was more interested to see what it means to medical researchers.

And only a complete idiot does not look up and study new things he comes across. No one knows everything about everything.

You lot have a love affair with this stupid term and use it only for one single purpose and that is to denigrate those that are improving their knowledge base.

Of course I do.

What I don't do is take my incompetent view of the subject I read and tell a doctor he is wrong on his scientific based opinion.

 

[pouroverguy]

(because it's a meta-analysis of about 64 studies, removing a few doesn't have much effect on the averages ... that's what a meta-analysis is, a study of the results of many other studies to show the overall result of what most of them show):

Here's an analysis to understand why junk-in-junk-out means that just because something is a meta-analysis, does not automatically mean its findings are correct.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1432576031651549187

 

[pouroverguy]

Wow, you really did a good job listing the scientific methodological problems in the 60 odd scientific studies listed. I posted over 60 scientific studies with a meta-analysis, and data to reproduce the meta-analysis. And you posted a useless childish meme, like this is high school. This is a pandemic, people are dying, perhaps let the adults take charge. Look at the list of scientific studies, go through them, if there are problems with them show why those scientific studies are flawed. There are over 60 separate independent studies.

Wow, you've done a really good job of explaining why a qualified epidemiologists points are wrong, where he systematically tore apart your favorite website.

Also, people are dying, this is a pandemic. Stop promoting pseudoscience.

 

[PsyWulf]

Vote to merge this to the giant thread about this nonsense

 

[Turtle]

Here's an analysis to understand why junk-in-junk-out means that just because something is a meta-analysis, does not automatically mean its findings are correct.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1432576031651549187

So explain the scientific reasons why you think the meta-analysis is incorrect.

You can't just hand-wave over scientific studies away and pretend they all just don't exist.

That's dangerous, and irresponsible, and if early treatment Ivermectin does improve outcomes, then this childish attitude of rejecting and ignoring SCIENTIFIC STUDIES on it may literally be responsible for killing people.

 

[quovadis]

Obviously not that difficult to fool you.

Perhaps explore what constitutes vaccine hesitancy and re-evaluate. Just to mention though that in silico binding efficacy does not always translate into in vivo reality. It's the reason why clinical trial studies are still required and as your study states itself it suggests motivation for such studies. You would think by now there would be a qualitative study without flaws or fraud?

 

[pouroverguy]

So explain the scientific reasons why you think the meta-analysis is incorrect.

You can't just hand-wave over scientific studies away and pretend they all just don't exist.

That's dangerous, and irresponsible, and if early treatment Ivermectin does improve outcomes, then this childish attitude of rejecting and ignoring SCIENTIFIC STUDIES on it may literally be responsible for killing people.

The consensus of the extreme majority of experts is that IVM has not been shown to work so far in clinical trials, and that many of the positive trials have had serious flaws and at times have been actually fraudulent resulting in retractions. The onus is on people to then argue against this and explain why. Why don't you go ahead and explain why the author of the thread is wrong, where he tore apart the stats and methodologies on that ridiculous website.

Also, please please show us and explain the scientific reasons why a proper meta-analysis done by actual experts from the Cochrane group about IVM is wrong.