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

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,785
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?
Good, but meta studies aren't based on any one study but on multiple. So what would cause the smaller studies to indicate the same? What would cause some studies to show either inconclusive or ineffective? Dosage?

There's a reason studies are sometimes discarded with nobody ever paying attention to them again. Since paracetamol is now apparently everyone's favourite when it comes to IVM comparisons I'll use that. Suppose I set up a study using 50mg to treat headache and conclude that it's ineffective. Remember the standard dose is 500-1000mg. Discarding such a study in light of the body of evidence would indeed not be biased but unbiased. Why should a flawed study receive the same weight as others or indeed be considered at all? Since the standard effective treatment is 10 times that the only value such a study can hold is to tell us 50mg is ineffective.

This is also why I don't give attention to anecdotes that try to prove something. Someone can pick a number of cases where it didn't work to support an agenda as can someone pick a number of cases where it did. Only trials can really put such cases into context. So far the successful ones use a dosage of 0.2-0.4mg/kg. In vitro results would suggest 0.6mg/kg as really effective. IVM has been used safely at up to 2-4mg/kg.

As I said there's no single trial or study that convinced me but rather the body of evidence. I put more value in secondary evaluations and peer review showing why the results are what we see.

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.
So either you have no knowledge of p-values, which is hard to believe as even a basic statistical course will at least gloss over them, or you deliberately tried to lead him on the wrong course. It's either lies or malice but as Geoff said it can't be both.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,415
The second one is a letter based on another research report that does not get its facts right.
It was also not a trial for treating Covid 19 but an attempt to see IF the IC50 value would be possible in humans.

The study was conducted in 2002. So there is no Ideological pro or anti-IVM bias in it. What it showed is that the concentration is very difficult to achieve through standard treatments.

Current medical professionals have used these results to show that the concentrations of IVM that were measured in the Australian desk based lab study will be difficult to achieve in humans, which has led them to doubt IVM as an effective treatment, which is why the big push for RCT studies.

I hope that some studies come out soon that can prove its efficacy. It is cheap and readily available, so would do well in countries that are behind on vaccines. If it isn't and gets used, it will just prolong the pandemic.

I just get irked by the fact that they had to resort to forging and plagiarising a study. I find that strange.

This is why I am very skeptical and why I want to understand what data did its biggest proponents study and review.
 

RonSwanson

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,171
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
Too much to drink at lunch?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,983
The study was conducted in 2002. So there is no Ideological pro or anti-IVM bias in it. What it showed is that the concentration is very difficult to achieve through standard treatments.

Current medical professionals have used these results to show that the concentrations of IVM that were measured in the Australian desk based lab study will be difficult to achieve in humans, which has led them to doubt IVM as an effective treatment, which is why the big push for RCT studies.

I hope that some studies come out soon that can prove its efficacy. It is cheap and readily available, so would do well in countries that are behind on vaccines. If it isn't and gets used, it will just prolong the pandemic.

I just get irked by the fact that they had to resort to forging and plagiarising a study. I find that strange.

This is why I am very skeptical and why I want to understand what data did its biggest proponents study and review.
Yes quite correct, but it is a pity that they did not get their facts right! The original study was as you say free of a lot of this Covid nonsense and I have actually pointed to it before.

It is so sad that on the one hand we have "trials" set up by big pharma to deliberately try and play down the possible use of IVM, and then on the other side trials set up in almost a panic mode, with good intentions but badly which all that happens is they shoot themselves in the foot..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,983
For those interested ( and to show that there has been a keen interest shown in IVM as an antiviral for many years (so far I have traced back to 2001).

It was then already known that the effective concentrations of IVM needed to act as an antiviral would be way more than (>10 times) to be effective as an antiviral. Obviously that raised all sorts of flags about IVM toxicity, which then led to the October 2002 study, which is referred to in quite a few trials related to Covid 19.

Here is the original paper link:


And here is a very brief summary: (best you read the whole paper if you are really interested.) Contrary to CD and his cohort, the paper is NOT that difficult to read. And if you have 2 - 3 years of University
chemistry, behind you it is even easier.

2002 Oct;
No covid hype affects it
The dosages tested:
Ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 200 microg/kg.

Safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin, administered in higher and/or more frequent doses than currently approved for human use, were evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose escalation study.
Meets most RCT trials requirements
indicating that the accumulation of ivermectin given every fourth day is minimal. This study demonstrated that ivermectin is generally well tolerated at these higher doses and more frequent regimens.
In fact, it is now known that just about all IVM taken orally will be out of your system within 24-36 hours!
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
17,258
This is actually kind of hilarious..... each side is committing the exact same fallacy to a degree.

Those pro-vaccine do not require the amount of studies proving that alternative treatments like IVM or the vaccines themselves work for vaccines..... those anti-vaccine do not require this amount of studies proving that vaccines or are not harmful or works and will support whatever alternative treatment is the strongest contender.

Might I submit that "studies" is actually just a proxy in this argument and the real reasons for a preferred treatment has nothing to do with proof? That this game of "my studies are more numerous than yours" is a total farce?
 

alanB

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
550
This is actually kind of hilarious..... each side is committing the exact same fallacy to a degree.

Those pro-vaccine do not require the amount of studies proving that alternative treatments like IVM or the vaccines themselves work for vaccines..... those anti-vaccine do not require this amount of studies proving that vaccines or are not harmful or works and will support whatever alternative treatment is the strongest contender.

Might I submit that "studies" is actually just a proxy in this argument and the real reasons for a preferred treatment has nothing to do with proof? That this game of "my studies are more numerous than yours" is a total farce?
I tend to agree with you.

This whole situation is ridiculous!

Before the media and the politicians got involved, if you were sick you went to your doctor, and they prescribed you some or other medicine.

If you were unhappy with your doctor, you went to see another.

It was, and is, quite acceptable that different doctors might have different opinions and different treatments that they prefer.

Why is this situation so politicised? Why are we allowing the media to play games - it's very clear the media have taken it upon themselves to decide on our behalf what our medical treatment should be. Who are they to decide that?
 

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,722
I tend to agree with you.

This whole situation is ridiculous!

Before the media and the politicians got involved, if you were sick you went to your doctor, and they prescribed you some or other medicine.

If you were unhappy with your doctor, you went to see another.

It was, and is, quite acceptable that different doctors might have different opinions and different treatments that they prefer.

Why is this situation so politicised? Why are we allowing the media to play games - it's very clear the media have taken it upon themselves to decide on our behalf what our medical treatment should be. Who are they to decide that?
The issue here is a bunch of amateurs reading some studies and documents and then trying to position themselves as qualified. Hell, one stated that is enough to be qualified to have knowledge over a doctor etc.
Essentially if you don't fall into the "IVM is the silver bullet" grouping of a minority here, you are portrayed as insolent and illogical.
If you fall into the group of "IVM needs further study", you are portrayed as insolent and illogical. 1 has gone as far as to attack the credibility of doctors and pharmacists for not simply prescribing this whilst giving the middle finger to their oath and the fact that it's their careers on the line, whilst attacking SAHPRA.
They don't want to be told that it doesn't work in all cases...

This situation IS ridiculous. You have unqualified, NO experience people trying to push a narrative and portray themselves as experts when they wouldn't hold a candle to someone with 6 months of study in this particular field. They'd get slaughtered in a proper debate in person. At least here they can keyboard warrior the hell out of something, even if the person they're arguing with has more medical experience than them.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,785
The issue here is a bunch of amateurs reading some studies and documents and then trying to position themselves as qualified. Hell, one stated that is enough to be qualified to have knowledge over a doctor etc.
Essentially if you don't fall into the "IVM is the silver bullet" grouping of a minority here, you are portrayed as insolent and illogical.
If you fall into the group of "IVM needs further study", you are portrayed as insolent and illogical. 1 has gone as far as to attack the credibility of doctors and pharmacists for not simply prescribing this whilst giving the middle finger to their oath and the fact that it's their careers on the line, whilst attacking SAHPRA.
They don't want to be told that it doesn't work in all cases...

This situation IS ridiculous. You have unqualified, NO experience people trying to push a narrative and portray themselves as experts when they wouldn't hold a candle to someone with 6 months of study in this particular field. They'd get slaughtered in a proper debate in person. At least here they can keyboard warrior the hell out of something, even if the person they're arguing with has more medical experience than them.
The issue is you're still treating it like information is contained in textbooks. We are well into the 21st century already. Your average intelligent person has enough information at their fingertips to make an assessment of the evidence and position of a claim. It's also not like scientists and doctors are ever on the same page. Einstein even had an outburst once.

What I have an issue with is some people simply go with the narratives without any critical thinking. Take Gary, he has a list on here of topics. All of them pushed by MSM, not even scientists. Any contrary view he calls bunk. You can't have critical thinking and not disagree on anything. The human mind doesn't work like that. Yet it's the uncritical that always insist they must be correct.

What people are really saying with "IVM needs further study" is that they are waiting for mainstream acceptance, because if it was about further study that's happening all the time.
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
17,258
What people are really saying with "IVM needs further study" is that they are waiting for mainstream acceptance, because if it was about further study that's happening all the time.
What is interesting is how people so easily completely try to ignore anecdotal evidence in favour of "studies"..... but only when it comes to alternatives to vaccines.... but at the same time refuse to admit the current rollout is actually a massive uncontrolled study with a shrinking control group. This is not scientific thinking it's herd mentality.

On the other side you have people largely fearful of modern vaccines because of past corporate excesses and a lack of legal accountability only encouraging further excesses. They are willing to accept anything that is not a vaccine and engage in massively contradictory herd mentality.

I have seen allegations of viruses are spontaneously created garbage collectors that spread because if one part of the population have this problem others must as well and viruses don't actually exist and the cells doing their own garbage collection is just being called viruses and they happen individually because of environmental factors but cannot spread exist side by side as if both are true at the same time.... with no one noticing the problem.

I am all for either hypotheses being potentially true of course but..... clearly only one can be.

The main myth here seems to be "my side is immune to mass hysteria but yours is not, your side clearly must be stopped because it's going to kill us all"..... applicable to both sides.
 

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,722
The issue is you're still treating it like information is contained in textbooks. We are well into the 21st century already. Your average intelligent person has enough information at their fingertips to make an assessment of the evidence and position of a claim. It's also not like scientists and doctors are ever on the same page. Einstein even had an outburst once.

What I have an issue with is some people simply go with the narratives without any critical thinking. Take Gary, he has a list on here of topics. All of them pushed by MSM, not even scientists. Any contrary view he calls bunk. You can't have critical thinking and not disagree on anything. The human mind doesn't work like that. Yet it's the uncritical that always insist they must be correct.

What people are really saying with "IVM needs further study" is that they are waiting for mainstream acceptance, because if it was about further study that's happening all the time.
No, but you have people that study for a long period of time AND have experience. Now compare that with the amateur sleuthing you lot do and they're incomparable.
You are treating what a doctor, pharmacist, nurse etc. etc studies for (well, old Geoff too) as inconsequential when it's literally your views, and you trying to push them here as "qualified" people through reading, that are that instead. Medically speaking. We all have a view over various topics.
Mainsteam acceptance is just that...proven to do no harm; proven to work against what it is purported to work. Now with zero medical training you can be excused for not knowing initially. However, you have been on here long enough to actually have read this is not the case. Medical people wait for the proof. They don't rush out and do whatever mainstream forumites want them to do. There is order in what and how it's done.
Sorry it doesn't fit into an agile world.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,983
This is actually kind of hilarious..... each side is committing the exact same fallacy to a degree.

Those pro-vaccine do not require the amount of studies proving that alternative treatments like IVM or the vaccines themselves work for vaccines..... those anti-vaccine do not require this amount of studies proving that vaccines or are not harmful or works and will support whatever alternative treatment is the strongest contender.

Might I submit that "studies" is actually just a proxy in this argument and the real reasons for a preferred treatment has nothing to do with proof? That this game of "my studies are more numerous than yours" is a total farce?
That is for those that are pushing the either/or argument.
For those pushing that we need vaccines AND an effective treatment none of this makes any sense.
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
17,258
That is for those that are pushing the either/or argument.
For those pushing that we need vaccines AND an effective treatment none of this makes any sense.
I am myself willing to accept a dual treatment system..... however I have no faith that any of the current vaccines are safe long term.

Also this demand to vaccinate everyone so that the pandemic can end..... makes no sense unless vaccines actually top transmission.... which they largely don't. And the pervasiveness of this obvious BS makes me suspicious.

There is the threat of of your immune system being either permanently or semi-permanently suppressed by the mRNA vaccines specifically and the requirement for annual booster shots which also entrenches my suspicions that the vaccine itself is not necessarily what this is about..... but rather the passports linked to what eventually will be a global citizens DB where you will reconfirm your details with every shot... the shots themselves essentially being firmware updates.

And then there is the threat that these boosters shots won't actually work the way they are intended to.... which has NO long term studies behind them and no intention of doing any before implementation. The biggest threat here is humans once again screwing things up only this time on a global scale.

As if Radium, Asbestos and Lead was not proof of where massive blindly novel adoptions can lead.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,415
Which study? Is there an alternative link to the study that does not depend on twitter?
The 2nd tweet in the thread ... hence why I said, read the thread.

Within that tweet is a link to download the study for yourself.


Title -

Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Topical Ivermectin + Iota Carrageenan in the Prophylaxis against COVID-19 in Health
Personnel
 
Top