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

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,695
Here's a Joe Rogan episode (the guests do most of the talking so don't roll your eyes, though Joe has done his homework on the topic) with Dr Pierre Kory and Brett Weinstein on Ivermectin. It's really long and it gets interesting about 30 minutes in but I highly recommend it.

They go into many aspects of Ivermectin, not just it's effectiveness against Covid-19. Pierre really hits it home about the case for Ivermectin.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,720
Are you seriously conflating the two?

In parallel to Piltdown Man there was substantial other evidence that supported the evolution theory.

What other conclusive IVM studies are out there?

Why do you have Mediclinic going nope?
It's not conflating. So I will turn your own questions against you. If the evidence was so substantial why stoop to that level? Why did it take a fraud to convince the largest part of the scientific community?

The truth is that evolution has never stood on good solid evidence. You can harp on about the rest of the evidence but the fact remains that at some point all of the evidence that supported it in a single instance either gets shown as fraudulent or gets called into question later. But you will not go back to that and reevaluate your position.

You're right there is no conflating the two. Evolution may or may not be true, I don't care and I don't base my life on it. What I do know is that I have a better chance of winning the lottery than of IVM not being an effective treatment. It's something we can actually assign a statistical confidence to. I'm not learnt enough in statistics to tell you how the p-value is derived so will leave that to others. Your issue is that you don't understand what the qualifications mean and what is being studied and conflate it with the effectiveness of IVM as a treatment overall.

You are just part of a group of stooges. Instead of evaluating arguments and evidence the commonality among you lot is that you always pick the mainstream view as the "correct" one. Any dissent you label as conspiracy nutters, pseudoscience or denialism. Because there's no dissent among you when it comes to any such topics your circle jerks mistakenly gives you confidence that you are right. In reality everyone else sees it as a lack of intelligence on your part.

That is what's really going on here. You are all just a bunch of conformists.

From ivmeta



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

Really? So every single person who has been treated by IVM recovered?
The vaccines have prevented all Covid deaths?

Strange that the biggest champions of IVM can't give me their sample of definitive studies that showed its efficacy.
And here is another testament to your thinking ability. It does not have to be one study or even many. It's evaluation of the entire body of evidence even including the ones that on face value doesn't appear to support it. But you've already indicated you're unable to evaluate such evidence and can only focus on single pieces of information.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
If only there were a way to plant cherry trees on internet bulletin boards. Not having to pay the pickers would revolutionise the cherry industry! :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
14,990
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.

Because I'm not qualified to read them and neither are you. Is Mediclinic qualified to read them? And if they are, why do they reject them?
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
14,990
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 looked at them. Nowhere is the methodology stated, just results. And anyway, I'm not qualified to interpret them but I'm sure Mediclinic is. Are you?
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
14,990
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.

Oh yes, YouTube. Replaces many years of university study in a few video sessions.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,411
It's not conflating. So I will turn your own questions against you. If the evidence was so substantial why stoop to that level? Why did it take a fraud to convince the largest part of the scientific community?

The truth is that evolution has never stood on good solid evidence. You can harp on about the rest of the evidence but the fact remains that at some point all of the evidence that supported it in a single instance either gets shown as fraudulent or gets called into question later. But you will not go back to that and reevaluate your position.

You're right there is no conflating the two. Evolution may or may not be true, I don't care and I don't base my life on it. What I do know is that I have a better chance of winning the lottery than of IVM not being an effective treatment. It's something we can actually assign a statistical confidence to. I'm not learnt enough in statistics to tell you how the p-value is derived so will leave that to others. Your issue is that you don't understand what the qualifications mean and what is being studied and conflate it with the effectiveness of IVM as a treatment overall.

You are just part of a group of stooges. Instead of evaluating arguments and evidence the commonality among you lot is that you always pick the mainstream view as the "correct" one. Any dissent you label as conspiracy nutters, pseudoscience or denialism. Because there's no dissent among you when it comes to any such topics your circle jerks mistakenly gives you confidence that you are right. In reality everyone else sees it as a lack of intelligence on your part.

That is what's really going on here. You are all just a bunch of conformists.


The vaccines have prevented all Covid deaths?


And here is another testament to your thinking ability. It does not have to be one study or even many. It's evaluation of the entire body of evidence even including the ones that on face value doesn't appear to support it. But you've already indicated you're unable to evaluate such evidence and can only focus on single pieces of information.

The vaccines never claimed 100% efficacy.

If that site claims IVM not to be effective in only one out of 194 Billion chance and there have only been a few hundred million cases that implies everyone who received IVM would be cured.

Give me your most convincing study that showed IVM works. I'll consider it.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,720
The vaccines never claimed 100% efficacy.

If that site claims IVM not to be effective in only one out of 194 Billion chance and there have only been a few hundred million cases that implies everyone who received IVM would be cured.

Give me your most convincing study that showed IVM works. I'll consider it.
Dude, this shows you don't even have the ability to understand what a p-value is. The site isn't claiming it's only ineffective in 1 out of 194 billion cases. It's claiming there's a 1 out of 194 billion chance IVM is ineffective and the results of all studies are wrong and derived through chance events. So if you truly believe it's ineffective and the studies are inconclusive go and buy a lottery ticket because you have a 10,000 times better chance of winning.

I'm not going to spoon feed you. Plenty of studies and evidence have been provided. If you're really interested go through them and see if you can understand why they claim what they are claiming.

Funny how our resident "technical expert" CD also doesn't know what a p-value is and agrees with you. :ROFL:
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,930
I can not believe CD does not have at least "some" statistical knowledge or at least got to grips with a little bit of what used to be called "numerical analysis". There is no engineering course I know of that does not require that knowledge. As he claims to be a "robotic engineer" his claim that he cannot undertake such an analysis makes no sense whatsoever, Either he is lying about this or he is not a robotic engineer. He cannot be both.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,411
Dude, this shows you don't even have the ability to understand what a p-value is. The site isn't claiming it's only ineffective in 1 out of 194 billion cases. It's claiming there's a 1 out of 194 billion chance IVM is ineffective and the results of all studies are wrong and derived through chance events. So if you truly believe it's ineffective and the studies are inconclusive go and buy a lottery ticket because you have a 10,000 times better chance of winning.

I'm not going to spoon feed you. Plenty of studies and evidence have been provided. If you're really interested go through them and see if you can understand why they claim what they are claiming.

Funny how our resident "technical expert" CD also doesn't know what a p-value is and agrees with you. :ROFL:
Lol I got that wrong, misread their phrasing of the p-value.

I looked at what seems to be a significant positive study, Niaee. This study and Elgazzar are what swayed the Meta-Analysis to say IVM is effective.

Now that Elgazzar has been shown to be fraudulent, it leaves Niaee.

This pre-print is also a low quality study, showing some inconsistencies with its concealment during randomisation. Pulling this study out is what pulls that meta-analysis down even further.

I then looked at some of the other studies. That site really does not filter the studies.

Very small studies are included with tiny n values.

The meta doesn't include studies that showed no effect, so a serious selection bias as well.

So from that meta, it is inconclusive.

Hence, why I ask for the group of studies that swayed your opinion in favour of IVM?

As you purport to be a man of science, I am sure you have a list of studies that you reviewed that informed your opinion? Since you have discussed them several times, it should be at your fingertips.

Or was it a series of youtube videos and podcasts?
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
14,990
I can not believe CD does not have at least "some" statistical knowledge or at least got to grips with a little bit of what used to be called "numerical analysis". There is no engineering course I know of that does not require that knowledge. As he claims to be a "robotic engineer" his claim that he cannot undertake such an analysis makes no sense whatsoever, Either he is lying about this or he is not a robotic engineer. He cannot be both.

Can you stick to the topic? Which is not me...

I notice the only way some here can argue is to make assumptions about me...
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
14,990
Dude, this shows you don't even have the ability to understand what a p-value is. The site isn't claiming it's only ineffective in 1 out of 194 billion cases. It's claiming there's a 1 out of 194 billion chance IVM is ineffective and the results of all studies are wrong and derived through chance events. So if you truly believe it's ineffective and the studies are inconclusive go and buy a lottery ticket because you have a 10,000 times better chance of winning.

I'm not going to spoon feed you. Plenty of studies and evidence have been provided. If you're really interested go through them and see if you can understand why they claim what they are claiming.

Funny how our resident "technical expert" CD also doesn't know what a p-value is and agrees with you. :ROFL:

Why do I need to argue p-values with you, who is as unqualified in medical research as I am, when medical researchers are proving you wrong all the time? Refer Mediclinic.
 

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,714
Really wish you keyboard warriors advocating the use of IVM based on your Internet search skills would get off your asses and go speak to nurses, doctors, pharmacists and paramedics. You might hear the other side of this.
Had a family member pass away yesterday and even though they used IVM it did absolutely nothing.
It fcuking doesn't work as well as you lot think. But you hide behind studies with ZERO actual medical experience to base anything on slagging off people who don't sit on your side of the fence.
You lot, above all, should be fcuking ashamed. Really
 

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,714
Why do I need to argue p-values with you, who is as unqualified in medical research as I am, when medical researchers are proving you wrong all the time? Refer Mediclinic.
Remember...you don't need a medical degree/qualification to be "qualified". That's the gist of the argument 2 weeks ago.
Read, read, read some more and *poof*...like magic. You know as much as the medical fraternity.
 

Aghori

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
12,451
So what's the verdict, does it work or does it not? I know it's an anti-parasite drug thats used for lice/river fever/scabies etc... how the hell will it stop viruses?
 

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,695
So what's the verdict, does it work or does it not? I know it's an anti-parasite drug thats used for lice/river fever/scabies etc... how the hell will it stop viruses?

Some studies have said it binds to the spike protein of the virus so it inturn can't bind to the cell and so can't replicate.
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
14,990
Really wish you keyboard warriors advocating the use of IVM based on your Internet search skills would get off your asses and go speak to nurses, doctors, pharmacists and paramedics. You might hear the other side of this.
Had a family member pass away yesterday and even though they used IVM it did absolutely nothing.
It fcuking doesn't work as well as you lot think. But you hide behind studies with ZERO actual medical experience to base anything on slagging off people who don't sit on your side of the fence.
You lot, above all, should be fcuking ashamed. Really

Forget them listening to paramedics. I can't speak for the others as I'm a paramedic and not a nurse, doctor or pharmacist and they won't listen to me...

But we do have someone on the IVM side here who claims to have done an "Advanced First Aid" course for which there is no certificate, claims to be competent to administer snake bite serum and apply tourniquets...
 
Last edited:

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,695
Really wish you keyboard warriors advocating the use of IVM based on your Internet search skills would get off your asses and go speak to nurses, doctors, pharmacists and paramedics. You might hear the other side of this.
Had a family member pass away yesterday and even though they used IVM it did absolutely nothing.
It fcuking doesn't work as well as you lot think. But you hide behind studies with ZERO actual medical experience to base anything on slagging off people who don't sit on your side of the fence.
You lot, above all, should be fcuking ashamed. Really

What was the dosage?
Did they have one dose or several?
Did they use it early, mid or late?
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
14,990
Some studies have said it binds to the spike protein of the virus so it inturn can't bind to the cell and so can't replicate.

Correct. But nobody knows how effective IVM is in preventing the binding, who it will work on due to genetic differences, what the effective dosage is and whether the effective dosage will kill the patient due to liver failure. All medicines are poison, even paracetamol. OD on paracetamol for a while and it will also kill you due to liver failure...
 

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,695
Correct. But nobody knows how effective IVM is in preventing the binding, what the effective dosage is and whether the effective dosage will kill the patient due to liver failure. All medicines are poison, even paracetamol. OD on paracetamol for a while and it will also kill you due to liver failure...

Where are you getting your info on liver damage from? You just guessing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa
Top