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

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
16,913
Another stupid question being asked just to try and embarrass and ridicule anyone that responds.
If you are not interested in the broader topic of finding a evaluating existing drugs for the treatment of Covid or any other ailment (the repurposing of existing drugs), then just stop commenting.
Your continued involvement is obviously bad for you. And your contributions to this debate have zero value. There is no ROI for you, so why continue?
Just go away!

Seeing as you're on about ROI, what's in your obsession with Ivermectin for you?

And can you give him a list of 10 RCT, peer reviewed studies that "DO" show effectiveness against COVID?
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,581
Another stupid question being asked just to try and embarrass and ridicule anyone that responds.
If you are not interested in the broader topic of finding a evaluating existing drugs for the treatment of Covid or any other ailment (the repurposing of existing drugs), then just stop commenting.
Your continued involvement is obviously bad for you. And your contributions to this debate have zero value. There is no ROI for you, so why continue?
Just go away!
I am. If there was something that had been definitely shown and demonstrated to treat COVID, that was readily available, I would be happy. I would love to see a few RCT, peer reviewed studies on the efficacy of IVM, but sadly one of the largest studies that contributed to a meta-analysis of IVM, turned out to be fraudulent, leaving the evidence in favour thereof to be lacking.

It begs the question, as to why? Why did they have to go to such an extent of forging the data and plagiarising much of their study? What was the aim?

Really irks me as to why they had to stoop to that level, if as you and so many other people allege that IVM is an effective treatment, surely just let the results talk for themselves?

So as it stands the only thing that has been definitively proven reducing COVID deaths is the vaccines (inb4 some random BS - look at the UK, look at Israel, the USA). Hence, I am defending them.

The correlation between people arguing against something proven to be effective against the virus and arguing in favour of a drug that has very circumstantial, non-definitive evidence is quite interesting.

The fact that you attack me, rather than supplying me with several RCT, peer reviewed studies, tends to show that the actual evidence to support your view is somewhat lacking.

Would reputable hospitable groups, like Mediclinic really make a statement against IVM, if there was something to the claims? You essentially are arguing that they are in violation of basic Duty of Care ethics, if you argue they are somehow ignoring these positive studies, where ever they may exist.

If over the next few months more definitive RCT studies emerge, that show a benefit, that would be excellent news, as it would be another step forward in getting out of this pandemic.

However if there is nothing and people keep banging on this drum, it actually drives the pandemic forward, as people chase snake oil cures, while ignoring the things that do help. The result is people die, in the blind faith of something that does not work, while a very simple straight forward way to save lives exists.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,595
Heres 39 peer reviewed (30 are RCT)
The problem is CD and his co conspiracy theorists (they would hate to be called that though), won't even bother to take one of those RCT trials and analyse the results themselves. Not even to check the conclusions drawn.
Some would claim they are not competent to be able to do so. Yet they will claim to be competent to pass judgement on other statistical analyses, even even come up with their own?
And mostly ,critics of the stats don't really understand what the p-test actually means. It is the most common test done in all RCT trials. To truly appreciate the values quoted you must have a good grasp of the statistical theory.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,581
Heres 39 peer reviewed (30 are RCT)

Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,581
The problem is CD and his co conspiracy theorists (they would hate to be called that though), won't even bother to take one of those RCT trials and analyse the results themselves. Not even to check the conclusions drawn.
Some would claim they are not competent to be able to do so. Yet they will claim to be competent to pass judgement on other statistical analyses, even even come up with their own?
And mostly ,critics of the stats don't really understand what the p-test actually means. It is the most common test done in all RCT trials. To truly appreciate the values quoted you must have a good grasp of the statistical theory.
From ivmeta

The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 60 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 193 billion

1 in 193 billion chance of an ineffective treatment ...

Really? So every single person who has been treated by IVM recovered?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,595
There you are. He asked for 10 studies just to trot out his usual denial summary. He is not interested in the studies, nor in the credentials of those that undertake the meta analyses and their stated criteria of how they selected the studies they chose to use, nor the qualifactions of the data they listed, nothing.
He just wants an opportunity to again post his favourite rebuttal.
So, dont respond to his stuff.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,581
There you are. He asked for 10 studies just to trot out his usual denial summary. He is not interested in the studies, nor in the credentials of those that undertake the meta analyses and their stated criteria of how they selected the studies they chose to use, nor the qualifactions of the data they listed, nothing.
He just wants an opportunity to again post his favourite rebuttal.
So, dont respond to his stuff.
Ivmeta is a GiGo, that does not filter the studies for whether or not they are proper studies.

I want you to list what you think are the 10 most significant RCT peer reviewed IVM studies.

I asked for your list.

The list that swayed your opinion, where you reviewed the science and made your decision to trust IVM.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,595
Ivmeta is a GiGo, that does not filter the studies for whether or not they are proper studies.

I want you to list what you think are the 10 most significant RCT peer reviewed IVM studies.

I asked for your list.

The list that swayed your opinion, where you reviewed the science and made your decision to trust IVM.
I have posted numerous time why I am interested in this topic. And no not a single study had anything to do with it.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,581
LOL he gives you studies and you dismiss them out of hand without even looking into them. Yet you go on and on and on about the 1 study that has questions,and you accept that, because that fits your narrative.
I haven't dismissed the studies. I am saying that meta site is not trustworthy, as it collates data, without critical analysis of the studies it assimilates.

Can you provide me with a relevant study that helped you to formulate your opinion on the efficacy of IVM as a treatment for COVID.

Should be easy.
 

Temujin

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
13,223
D8sxR1.gif
 

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
8,339
I haven't dismissed the studies. I am saying that meta site is not trustworthy, as it collates data, without critical analysis of the studies it assimilates.

Can you provide me with a relevant study that helped you to formulate your opinion on the efficacy of IVM as a treatment for COVID.

Should be easy.

That site has links to the studies.........

I've gone through some with a cursory glance but don't remember exactly which ones.

I also like to use a YouTube site that gives a summary of the important data, will see if I can find the video when on my PC.
 

JohnMao

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
8,529
Another stupid question being asked just to try and embarrass and ridicule anyone that responds.
If you are not interested in the broader topic of finding a evaluating existing drugs for the treatment of Covid or any other ailment (the repurposing of existing drugs), then just stop commenting.
Your continued involvement is obviously bad for you. And your contributions to this debate have zero value. There is no ROI for you, so why continue?
Just go away!
Take on SAHPRA with all your knowledge. I am sure they'll listen to some anonymous person who slated them online, slated doctors and pharmacists online, and positions themself as an expert on a forum NOT dealing with medical opinions. And by that I mean proper, QUALIFIED medical opinions.
First aid course and chemistry textbook in close proximity don't count in that discussion.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,581
That site has links to the studies.........

I've gone through some with a cursory glance but don't remember exactly which ones.

I also like to use a YouTube site that gives a summary of the important data, will see if I can find the video when on my PC.
I want your study, that gave you the biggest sense of conviction in favour of IVM?
 

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
8,339
I want your study, that gave you the biggest sense of conviction in favour of IVM?

It wasn't one thing, I came to this conclusion over time.

When I first heard of IVM for example it was when a bunch was confiscated in SA and I thought, ah they are just trying to sell any old thing to people to make a profit.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,581
It wasn't one thing, I came to this conclusion over time.

When I first heard of IVM for example it was when a bunch was confiscated in SA and I thought, ah they are just trying to sell any old thing to people to make a profit.
Strange that the biggest champions of IVM can't give me their sample of definitive studies that showed its efficacy.
 

Conack

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
2,107
After prof Bret and Heather Weinstein (Darkhorse) started investigating it, examining it and discussing it over quite a while before becoming proponents for its use - "using the scientific method" so to speak. That's what convinced me - including to become a patreon to keep them going as I expected the youtube ban (which happened recently)

If you start listening to their older stuff up to current, it's very obvious that they're careful with their language and immediately have corrections in followup podcasts when they get something wrong.

They're lefties, but because they've been discussing ivermectin and the lableak hypothesis, they're now suddenly branded as "rightwing conspiracy content", which is just ridiculous.

Bret Weinstein, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Yuval Harari, Dawkins, Lex Fridman, etc are folks worth listening to, even if you disagree with some of them some of the time there is a lot to learn from these folks.
 
Top