Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind
academic.oup.com
academic.oup.com
And, if they prescribe it for treating COVID, look for a better doctor.
I don't get why people like you think the world is so US centric. The world doesn't give a flying fuck about giving Trump a very slight lower chance of getting re-elected, much less kill their people and their economy for it. I don't see how studies across the world were fabricated, there's no reason for, say, India to kill millions of their citizens and destroy their economy by faking studies about HCQ when they don't hate Trump and may have even liked him.
You're the one that's confused, here's an analysis on HCQ from someone that has worked on drug discovery for decades.
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/hydroxychloroquine...
You're a not a drug researcher.
And I don't think Trump pushed Ivermectin? If it works so well as you think, one would think the Democrats would be all over it so they can say Biden cured Covid and restored the economy.
Frankly I trust my doctor more than I trust FB, YouTube, and the government.
It’s not just a “horse dewormer” folks, it’s a “people dewormer” that has also been used in anti-viral treatments as well. Argue that’s it’s not effective, but stop pretending that this isn’t a drug that is prescribed to people all over the world.
BTW, I’m not arguing for or against it for Covid. I am just saying that if my doctor decided to prescribe it for me, I’m going to trust their judgement, because I trust them.
It's designed to shut down any reasoned discourse or critical thinking and I'm surprised it's still working.
b) "Sixty-three patients with positive PCR result were randomized into three arms of the study. There was 1 withdrawal, thus 62 patients completed the study" [0]
c) "We cannot conclude in this study that Ivermectin has a place in prophylaxis, but this warrants investigation." [0]
[0] https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/advance-article/doi/10.1093/q...
Sounds very underpowered
That said, I was wrong, removed. I guess it's too much to ask for people to trust the recommended medicine, perhaps we should get more pro-vaccine conspiracy theories out there =/
This does not seem to match the HackerNews title very well ;)
Days to negative in the three trial arms: Ivermictine: avg= 6.0 95% CI= (4.61–7.38) Control: avg= 9.15 95% CI= (5.68–12.62)
there was only 20 patient in the control group this would give a margin of error of 21.91% for that 95% confidence interval.
Most statisticians agree that the minimum sample size to get any kind of meaningful result in this case would be ~385
Here's Cochran's meta-study; Cochran is, from what I can tell, very well-regarded. It appears to include this study. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
Later
For what it's worth: the boy rebuts this with the observation that you'd expect worsening symptoms for patients with actual parasitic infection, since there's an immune response to necrotic parasite tissue when ivermectin works. None of us here are ivermexperts though!
Separately, I'm having trouble parsing your comment, but I'm curious so I will ask: when you say "the boy rebuts", who is the boy here, yourself? Or..? Maybe I'm just not familiar with this turn of phrase.
But concerning controversy surrounding ivermectin I found this interesting text:
An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 5 µM required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro,17 which is much higher than 0.28 µM, the maximum reported plasma concentration achieved in vivo with a dose of approximately 1700 µg/kg (about nine times the FDA-approved dosification).24 25 In this sense, basic fundamentals for assessing ivermectin in COVID-19 at a clinical level appear to be insufficient. Among other reasons, we believe this might have led WHO to exclude ivermectin from its Solidarity Trial for repurposed drugs for COVID-19,12 which raises questions about the pertinence of conducting clinical studies on ivermectin.
from BMJ, "Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19" -- https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...
Getting vaccinated.
All these kinds of comments seem premised on the idea that nobody is studying ivermectin, and that any research results, even if just in 60 patients in Lagos, must be huge news. But lots of people are studying ivermectin! If it's effective, we should be seeing clear results.
That's not my understanding from reading here: https://ivmmeta.com/
Looks at the graphs there, and then check out a few of the studies with low p-values.
There are only 31 RTC studies. Most of them are very small and not even statically significant. It is a known problem that studies that show no effect or a bad effect are never published due to report and publication bias. So it's better to ignore the not statically significant studies.
So there are only 6 of the 31 RTC studies that are statically significant. If Ivermectin has no effect, we expect to see like 1.5 studies that are "statistically significant" due to a flukes. We don't know how many other studies have been tried but never published, so let's be very conservative and assume that if Ivermectin has no effect, we would get 2 studies that are "statistically significant" due to a flukes.
There are 6. I read a few of them and have very strange things. Not smoking guns, but big red flags.
So ... can you choose your favorite 3 statistically significant? I'll dismiss 2 as flukes and hopefully I can explain why the other study has a very big red flag and is not reliable.
Big Pharma will do everything in their power, including manipulate the media, to buy time while they develop new oral Covid drugs with a slightly tweaked chemical composition (just enough for them to legally profit off it). Knowing they have a certain % of the population that will blindly follow and argue for them helps.