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

Q

quovadis

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
11,031
Sensorei said:
No, I missed nothing. His point was misguided as I clearly explained. You don't really understand how statistical analysis works when doing a meta-analysis of studies. The reports are done with each study expected to have some degree of error. Moderately graded evidence is never discarded us unreliable.

Your layman's interpretation is not useful here. In layman's terms it mean's that the truth is probably close to what the data suggests but more research is required to establish certainty.

Read my explanation of what secondary outcome means in the setting of a study. Only secondary outcome evidence was poor. Nobody is claiming ivermectin is useful for patients with severe covid-19 illness or on a ventilator. That's what they refer to by secondary.

With science the devil is in the details, and unfortunately most people can't see or understand the details. They can only see a yes or a no as you've shown.
Click to expand...
I don't understand GRADE Certainty Ratings? Lol. You're being an imbecile. As already indicated having anything less than High (ie. moderate or low) is not an indicator of something you would consider qualitative. I am not the only person pointing this out regarding the studies being referenced.
 
Cosmik Debris

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
35,145
Geoff.D said:
To illustrate, 62% is considered not good enough to use IVM in a treatment plan for Covid 19, BUT at the same time, everyone is happy (the WHO gods have decreed it so) that 50% efficacy is "good enough" to allow the use of a vaccine for Covid 19?
Click to expand...

How many more times do I have to tell you that percentage is not a good way to enumerate stats because it's an abstract concept?
 
Cosmik Debris

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
35,145
Stonemason said:
It is funny when people people regard IVM as a treatment when most health authorities in the world advises against it. That makes one laugh at the stupidity of mankind.
Click to expand...

And then those not as qualified as those making the decisions in the health authorities still argue against them.
 
Q

quovadis

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
11,031
Geoff.D said:
To illustrate, 62% is considered not good enough to use IVM in a treatment plan for Covid 19, BUT at the same time, everyone is happy (the WHO gods have decreed it so) that 50% efficacy is "good enough" to allow the use of a vaccine for Covid 19?
Click to expand...
With or without Elgazzar being referenced and many other flawed/retracted studies included? Or doesn't it matter to you?
 
S

Sensorei

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
6,797
quovadis said:
I don't understand GRADE Certainty Ratings? Lol. You're being an imbecile. As already indicated having anything less than High (ie. moderate or low) is not an indicator of something you would consider qualitative. I am not the only person pointing this out regarding the studies being referenced.
Click to expand...
Well googled. Now you're slightly less stupid. Nobody here is claiming that ivermectin is a panacea for all covid-19 infections. But there is enough evidence to show that there is a great possibility that it could stop a considerable amount of people from dying, and that further research should be done. That is EXACTLY what the meta-analysis concludes regarding primary outcomes.
 
B

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,981
Sensorei said:
Well googled. Now you're slightly less stupid. Nobody here is claiming that ivermectin is a panacea for all covid-19 infections. But there is enough evidence to show that there is a great possibility that it could stop a considerable amount of people from dying, and that further research should be done. That is EXACTLY what the meta-analysis concludes regarding primary outcomes.
Click to expand...
Strange.

The Cochrane meta analysis for Ivermectin showed insufficient evidence to support the claim that it has any benefit.

What "enough evidence" is there, if the meta shows the opposite of this qualitative statement from you?
 
Nerfherder

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
29,703
BBSA said:
Popular podcaster and UFC commentator Joe Rogan is questioning media coverage, specifically from CNN, surrounding how he was treating his COVID-19 diagnosis.
www.usatoday.com

Joe Rogan questions media coverage of his COVID treatment, asking, 'Do I have to sue CNN?'

Joe Rogan, who recently said he tested positive for COVID-19, defended using the deworming medicine ivermectin to treat his sickness.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...
i'm saying this as a Rogan fan.

He is being silly here. He took a bunch of stuff and was fine after 3-5 days. There is nothing really to get excited about, its a singular data point.
I took nothing and was "cured" after 3 days.

Anyway.. i'm bored of this now.

Please get vaccinated and don't get IVM from the vet. If you have faith in it please participate in one of the trials so the data can be collected correctly.

For those thinking that IVM is the way to end the pandemic... how will that work ? How will we supply 8 billion people with a steady flow of IVM for the rest of their lives ?
Surely it just makes sense to vaccinate 70% of the world ?
 
Q

quovadis

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
11,031
Sensorei said:
Well googled. Now you're slightly less stupid. Nobody here is claiming that ivermectin is a panacea for all covid-19 infections. But there is enough evidence to show that there is a great possibility that it could stop a considerable amount of people from dying, and that further research should be done. That is EXACTLY what the meta-analysis concludes regarding primary outcomes.
Click to expand...
No need to Google. The consensus, unless you're totally smitten with meta-analysis of flawed studies, is that there is no evidence for (or against) Ivermectin's effectiveness as a treatment for Covid and until such time as there is a qualitative study providing evidence of such perhaps you should consider the fence rather than pushing pseudo-fact.
 
J

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
9,342
Q

quovadis

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
11,031
Geoff.D said:
To illustrate, 62% is considered not good enough to use IVM in a treatment plan for Covid 19, BUT at the same time, everyone is happy (the WHO gods have decreed it so) that 50% efficacy is "good enough" to allow the use of a vaccine for Covid 19?
Click to expand...
You might want to refresh your favourite site and read the revised version. It's now 49%. It's worth noting the size of the meta analysis is terribly small especially considering the sub-groups and the numbers exceed general population figures across the board which indicates poor data.
 
S

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
9,416
Nerfherder said:
i'm saying this as a Rogan fan.

He is being silly here. He took a bunch of stuff and was fine after 3-5 days. There is nothing really to get excited about, its a singular data point.
I took nothing and was "cured" after 3 days.

Anyway.. i'm bored of this now.

Please get vaccinated and don't get IVM from the vet. If you have faith in it please participate in one of the trials so the data can be collected correctly.

For those thinking that IVM is the way to end the pandemic... how will that work ? How will we supply 8 billion people with a steady flow of IVM for the rest of their lives ?
Surely it just makes sense to vaccinate 70% of the world ?
Click to expand...

Seriously what are you talking about? You take IVM for a short period and then recover from Covid and then you STOP taking it as antibodies are developed.
 
Cosmik Debris

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
35,145
SoldierMan said:
Seriously what are you talking about? You take IVM for a short period and then recover from Covid and then you STOP taking it as antibodies are developed.
Click to expand...

How do you know when to start taking Ivermectin seeing you have to start taking it "early"?
 
Geoff.D

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
26,878
quovadis said:
You might want to refresh your favourite site and read the revised version. It's now 49%. It's worth noting the size of the meta analysis is terribly small especially considering the sub-groups and the numbers exceed general population figures across the board which indicates poor data.
Click to expand...
So? Then it is the same as the vaccines! What is the problem? It has NO adverse effects to worry about either. IVM is therefore maybe even better than the worst of the vaccines. No, I will rather wait for the 3/4 trials underway at the moment and see what they have to say for themselves. Sitting on the fence is not my style.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top