www.thegatewaypundit.com
Hey guys,
www.politifact.com
Hey guys,
Thanks for thinking of me.
The problem is that it's observational, not blinded/randomized. Basically, it says that people who volunteered to take ivermectin did better than those who didn't volunteer to do so. Even with the efforts to align PSM, the bottom line is that you can't really compare these cohorts. Someone interested enough to volunteer to take the drug is probably doing other things to promote their health more than the non-volunteer cohort. Washing hands more, masking, etc.. I've yet to see a good RCT that shows significant benefits from ivermectin that show it doing better than standard course of treatment (for covid patients), or any really compelling reason to take it versus the vaccine for prophylaxis.
Oh, and maybe this has come up in the thread after the article you tagged me in, but the cureus article you cited has been amended. Turns out the authors are part of "big ivermectin" and either directly profit from its sale, or are part of organizations being funded by groups that promote it.
Basically, the article is an advertisement using cherry picked data. Sorry guys.
EDIT:
Did some more digging at lunchtime. Wow, this thing is over-the-top fraud. Politifact did a write-up on it early this year:
Ivermectin study on Brazil town is flawed, experts say
Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for use against COVID-19 and there’s no scientific consensus yet of its effectiveness in
Ivermectin appears harmless (despite some early concerns about it in people that actually have covid) but taking it instead of proper prophylaxis or treatment would lead to harm. Several big studies (RCTs) are due to drop data soon which will give us the final word, really, one way or the other.
www.factcheck.org
Ivermectin appears harmless (despite some early concerns about it in people that actually have covid) but taking it instead of proper prophylaxis or treatment would lead to harm. Several big studies (RCTs) are due to drop data soon which will give us the final word, really, one way or the other.
It's good to be wary of fact-checkers, but politifact and factcheck.org have proven reliable. Here's a factcheck.org commentary on the Campbell et al situation:
Evidence Still Lacking to Support Ivermectin as Treatment for COVID-19 - FactCheck.org
Randomized controlled trials haven't found ivermectin is beneficial in treating COVID-19, although results for ongoing studies will provide a more definitive answer. Yet, a video presents two weak studies as “powerful” and “overwhelming” evidence that the medication works to combat COVID-19.
It's interesting to note that the Campbell study was apparently registered for less than 10k patients. Either they cooked the books or took liberties with their regulatory filing. Either way, it's likely a career-ender for the folks involved. Expect this situation to continue to evolve, though it's quite a few months old already.
@Parley , yes, blood clots happen, and always have. In 1984, when I was in high school, during the "big game" between my school and our rival, one of our team fell during huddle and had to be carried off. He nearly died of a massive blood clot in his leg and upper arm. He was healthy, no trace of any steroids or illegal drugs (remember, 80's kinda before the worst of the androgen craze). He made a full recovery, eventually. I saw him fall with my own eyes.
For what it's worth, I will be getting shot number 5 in the next week or two, going with the Moderna bivalent.
Peace
Hey guys,
Thanks for thinking of me.
The problem is that it's observational, not blinded/randomized. Basically, it says that people who volunteered to take ivermectin did better than those who didn't volunteer to do so. Even with the efforts to align PSM, the bottom line is that you can't really compare these cohorts. Someone interested enough to volunteer to take the drug is probably doing other things to promote their health more than the non-volunteer cohort. Washing hands more, masking, etc.. I've yet to see a good RCT that shows significant benefits from ivermectin that show it doing better than standard course of treatment (for covid patients), or any really compelling reason to take it versus the vaccine for prophylaxis.
Oh, and maybe this has come up in the thread after the article you tagged me in, but the cureus article you cited has been amended. Turns out the authors are part of "big ivermectin" and either directly profit from its sale, or are part of organizations being funded by groups that promote it.
Basically, the article is an advertisement using cherry picked data. Sorry guys.
EDIT:
Did some more digging at lunchtime. Wow, this thing is over-the-top fraud. Politifact did a write-up on it early this year:
Ivermectin study on Brazil town is flawed, experts say
Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for use against COVID-19 and there’s no scientific consensus yet of its effectiveness in
Ivermectin appears harmless (despite some early concerns about it in people that actually have covid) but taking it instead of proper prophylaxis or treatment would lead to harm. Several big studies (RCTs) are due to drop data soon which will give us the final word, really, one way or the other.
It's good to be wary of fact-checkers, but politifact and factcheck.org have proven reliable. Here's a factcheck.org commentary on the Campbell et al situation:
Evidence Still Lacking to Support Ivermectin as Treatment for COVID-19 - FactCheck.org
Randomized controlled trials haven't found ivermectin is beneficial in treating COVID-19, although results for ongoing studies will provide a more definitive answer. Yet, a video presents two weak studies as “powerful” and “overwhelming” evidence that the medication works to combat COVID-19.
It's interesting to note that the Campbell study was apparently registered for less than 10k patients. Either they cooked the books or took liberties with their regulatory filing. Either way, it's likely a career-ender for the folks involved. Expect this situation to continue to evolve, though it's quite a few months old already.
@Parley , yes, blood clots happen, and always have. In 1984, when I was in high school, during the "big game" between my school and our rival, one of our team fell during huddle and had to be carried off. He nearly died of a massive blood clot in his leg and upper arm. He was healthy, no trace of any steroids or illegal drugs (remember, 80's kinda before the worst of the androgen craze). He made a full recovery, eventually. I saw him fall with my own eyes.
For what it's worth, I will be getting shot number 5 in the next week or two, going with the Moderna bivalent.
Peace
