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

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,953
Dude this whole user account should be in the dictionary under "Confirmation Bias" you are so far down the garden path that the molecules now 'look remarkably similar'.

My lord.



Merck to be specific, maybe google that if you are interested ya fscking jokers. LOL. :ROFL:
So, you have also given up before you get to the answer have you? Well, let me not be instrumental in the process of showing up how little effort you take to get to the why's and wherefore's of the comparison between the latest Pfizer blue pill and IVM. Much better if you continue to live inside your own ignorant bubble.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,953
You mean you only just found it. Old news

Lets us play remind me who:

1. Posted the link to the Cochranes Study?: @buka001
2. Claimed he read the Cochrane Study and its conclusions: @buka001

Therefore he should know IF NCT04391127 was considered by the Cochrane group? It was
He should therefore know that NCT04391127 made the cut and was found good enough to be used in their Meta-Analysis: It was.

1632821383649.png 1632821427518.png

So why does he now post it and claim it is brand new just posted?


And just to add to the insult, Cochrane actually lauded this particular study in their analysis.
 
Last edited:

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,411
Lets us play remind me who:

1. Posted the link to the Cochranes Study?: @buka001
2. Claimed he read the Cochrane Study and its conclusions: @buka001

Therefore he should know IF NCT04391127 was considered by the Cochrane group? It was
He should therefore know that NCT04391127 made the cut and was found good enough to be used in their Meta-Analysis: It was.

So why does he now post it and claim it is brand new just posted?


And just to add to the insult, Cochrane actually lauded this particular study in their analysis.
A peer review of the study came back yesterday that verified the data in the study supported the conclusions made by the authors of the study.

That is why it is back up in the news and worth repeating.

As you are now a man of science, I thought you of all would appreciate the good scientific vigour, displayed in this study and its positive peer review.

Except you are not?

P.S. why did you not address Access when he reposted "old" news?
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,411
Because he does not have a track record of posting things just to be obnoxious and contrary.
How is reporting on a positive result from a peer review of an IVM study obnoxious or contrary.

A week or two back you raised your concern about the long history of fraud and poor results in medical research.

So I am surprised and confused why you seem so upset with this good news?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,953
An Ivermectin study just got released.
Implies brand new never before seen study
It was a randomised control study, which also looked at HCQ as well.


A summary of the findings as follows -
No benefit.
Makes a supposed new finding.
How is reporting on a positive result from a peer review of an IVM study obnoxious or contrary.

A week or two back you raised your concern about the long history of fraud and poor results in medical research.

So I am surprised and confused why you seem so upset with this good news?
See anything in your post that it was just released after peer-review?
Even the link you post is to the original February report, not even the revised one used by Cochrane.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,953
BTW I also subscribe to the updates issued by www.medrxiv but the email version -- don't need no Twitter .....
 
Last edited:

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,411
Implies brand new never before seen study

Makes a supposed new finding.

See anything in your post that it was just released after peer-review?
Even the link you post is to the original February report, not even the revised one used by Cochrane.
Because you can't read twitter, so I transcribed it for you.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,953
Ummmm

You could look at it yourself.

Here is a discussion about the study and its impact on meta studies.

Some key passages out of this report to take note of, that is IF you are interested in being objective.

Ahmed Elgazzar at Benha University in Egypt, who is one of the authors of the paper, told Nature he was not given a chance to defend his work before it was removed.
Guilty condemned and crucified before being allowed to provide input?
The paper was “withdrawn from the Research Square platform without informing or asking me”, Elgazzar wrote in an e-mail to Nature. He defended the paper, and said of the plagiarism allegations that “often phrases or sentences are commonly used and referenced” when researchers read one another’s papers.
Pretty standard all over the place, especially in a pandemic. Not acceptable for students to do and understandable that a student might notice it but pretty "normal" in real life, especially when it is NOT a thesis ........
Chaccour and others studying ivermectin say that proof of whether the drug is effective against COVID-19 rests on a handful of large, ongoing studies, including a trial in Brazil with more than 3,500 participants. By the end of 2021, says Zoni, around 33,000 people will have participated in some kind of ivermectin trial.
So by the end of 2021 we might get a pretty good idea of the real picture regarding IVM.
“I think it is our duty to exhaust all potential benefits,” says Chaccour, particularly given that most countries still do not have widespread access to vaccines. “Ultimately if you do a trial and it fails, fine, but at least we tried.”

At least there is one researcher out there with a balanced objective view about IVM.
 
Last edited:

surface

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
16,959
Damn, what can I be with Higher Grade Science? Asking for an expert...
You can literally be anything. We even have eminent scientists working in NASA on this very august forum. We also have biologists, archeologists, history nerds on this forum. We are lucky on mybb.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,953
Interesting article. A mixture of virtual automatic rejection of any IVM related research plus very valid and objective suggestions affecting all medical research.

Clearly, the Twitter nerd did not get the final say in the authorship of the article and vastly tempered down his normal vitriol!

Not going to comment on the automatic criticism of IVM related research in the initial paragraphs --- evident that one or all the authors had already made up their minds about IVM related research.

The remaining sections however are interesting and should help to ensure better quality research in the future, IF accepted by the medical research fraternity. The problem, however, it tackles head-on generally accepted practice that has been going on for decades.

Given how staid and inflexible the medical world is, I doubt the suggestions will be easily accepted.
 
Last edited:

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,718
You can literally be anything. We even have eminent scientists working in NASA on this very august forum. We also have biologists, archeologists, history nerds on this forum. We are lucky on mybb.
I'll then be an expert in general science.
 

PsyWulf

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
11,993
I had higher grade Afrikaans and English. What does that make me?
 

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,718
A phd in linguistics.
Google PHd...there is a distinct difference. One doesn't require much study or experience (just deft keystrokes and a mind to filter out what you don't want to read; the other requires years of study and experience and most likely a dissertation.
 
Top