Current Events > Ivermectin Peer Reviewed Meta-Analysis

(+) Yeah! (+)

joe40001 posted...

So yeah, I don't need no mirror.

Think you do bruv

---

joe40001 posted...

Link? Quote?

You seem pretty sure, so I want to know what makes you think this.

https://www.e-bmc.co.uk/

Literally the very first link on the page is a letter to the MHRA recommending that they declare the vaccines unsafe.

---

Serious Cat posted...

https://www.e-bmc.co.uk/

Literally the very first link on the page is a letter to the MHRA recommending that they declare the vaccines unsafe.

I assume you mean this?
https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4eeb59304c7f.filesusr.com/ugd/593c4f_74a5f6d8ea484e15ac25e87099615bc2.pdf

If so, I'm reading it now, will get back to you.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Nothing fishy here at all.

The right wing misinformation complex is a Human Centipede of grift.

And before you claim that the mechanism by which it was funded doesn't impact the results it found, my response is that there is no clearly defined criteria for what studies they chose and what studies they rejected, implying that it was deliberately cherry-picked. I highly recommend you take a study design class.

Suspicious over a crowdfunded study for a generic drug that is sold for $2.90 per 100 12mg tablets and yet you're screaming at anyone on this board for being reluctant to get the vaccine right now with zero long term studies even though Corona chan vaccine developers are all immune to lawsuits and have received billions of dollars in funding.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-much-will-it-cost-to-get-a-covid-19-vaccine#Heres-what-the-government-has-spent-so-far

What exactly is the issue with acknowledging a pursuit of an alternate solution to the vaccines?

---

Sad_Face posted...

Corona chan vaccine developers are all immune to lawsuits

ITP: the EU isn't suing AstraZeneca for fucking up terribly
---

teep_ posted...

ITP: the EU isn't suing AstraZeneca for f***ing up terribly

Well then, I suppose I should add an addendum of "within the US court of Law".

---

Suspicious over a crowdfunded study for a generic drug that is sold for $2.90 per 100 12mg tablets and yet you're screaming at anyone on this board for being reluctant to get the vaccine right now with zero long term studies even though Corona chan vaccine developers are all immune to lawsuits and have received billions of dollars in funding.

Ah, the classic you cant sue the manufacturer and youre suppressing the cheap drug antivax tropes.

1) You cant sue the manufacturers of ivermectin when you have side effects either
2) Dexamethasone is even cheaper than ivermectin, and has over a years worth of solid evidence

---

Fun fact you cant sue manufacturers over Any vaccine related injury/ADR not just covid vaccines

darkroast is also right about not being able to sue drug manufacturers

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Fun fact you cant sue manufacturers over Any vaccine related injury/ADR not just covid vaccines

Fun fact, you can. Fun fact, you cant sue manufacturers for unavoidable side effects, for the same reason that you cant sue Planters because youre allergic to peanuts.

Manufacturers can be sued for failing to meet manufacturing standards, fabricating research data, adulteration, etc. They cant be sued because you had a reaction to their vaccine. They have literally no control over that. Nor should they bear responsibility.

---

Well. Yeah. But I was running under the assumption theyre not deliberately lying about their product ala Purdue Pharma or had a breach in sterility. And also literally meant what you just said. Sorry if it didnt come off like that

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Well. Yeah. But I was running under the assumption theyre not deliberately lying about their product ala Purdue Pharma or had a breach in sterility. Sorry if it didnt come off like that

No problem, sorry I rushed to conclusions because Im used to antiaxxers using that argument and having no idea what it actually means.

---

Sweet. Vaccines are still the best option to bringing a disease under control.

---

DarkRoast posted...

No problem, sorry I rushed to conclusions because Im used to antiaxxers using that argument and having no idea what it actually means.

I feel you. I couldve been more clear. It was just a visceral reaction to trying to paint that as covid exclusive.

---

Sad_Face posted...

teep_ posted...

ITP: the EU isn't suing AstraZeneca for f***ing up terribly

Well then, I suppose I should add an addendum of "within the US court of Law".

That's not a vaccine thing, that's a "the US has a fucked up legal/medical system" thing
---

DarkRoast posted...

Ah, the classic you cant sue the manufacturer and youre suppressing the cheap drug antivax tropes.

1) You cant sue the manufacturers of ivermectin when you have side effects either
2) Dexamethasone is even cheaper than ivermectin, and has over a years worth of solid evidence

1) The government, social media, and virtually every big platform of influence are not pushing Ivermectin like they are with the vaccine. Heck, some universities are requiring staff and students to be vaccinated and employers are pressuring their employees to get the vaccine. The social pressure isn't the same. Therefore the basis in which I would want to sue for Ivermectin according to your analogy wouldn't be the same. Why is this relevant?

2) I'm not opposed to alternate solutions. More than one way to skin a cat. However, given how difficult, time consuming, and expensive it is to legitimize another solution to treating Corona chan, why spread resources thin and bring up another drug?

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Fun fact you cant sue manufacturers over Any vaccine related injury/ADR not just covid vaccines

darkroast is also right about not being able to sue drug manufacturers

Yes, other drug manufacturers gain immunity (from lawsuits from allergic reactions from the above discussion) along with it, but my concern is that the Act was invoked last year, with the anticipation of vaccines being developed as quickly as possible.

---

but my concern is that the Act was invoked last year, with the anticipation of vaccines being developed as quickly as possible.

Because we need you to make a vaccine in six months, including rigorous clinical trials, and if anything goes wrong we are suing you to the grave isnt very reassuring.

There is a term for this line of thinking. Its called the Nirvana fallacy. The belief that if something isnt 100% safe, it shouldnt be done. The reality is that literally nothing in the world is 100% safe and 100% known to be safe over the long term. COVID-19 killed over half a million Americans; We finally got it under control with the vaccine. Sure, there could be side effects down the line. But in the real world, nothing worth doing has zero risk.

---

DarkRoast posted...

but my concern is that the Act was invoked last year, with the anticipation of vaccines being developed as quickly as possible.

Because we need you to make a vaccine in six months, including rigorous clinical trials, and if anything goes wrong we are suing you to the grave isnt very reassuring.

Poor companies getting "sued into the grave".

I'd hope if there ever was a massive fuckup (which is not what i think happened) we'd be more concerned about the people getting buried than the companies financial interest getting buried.

---

Look, another topic where Joe thinks hes an expert in something and he gets bitch slapped back to reality.

Must be a day ending in -y
---

I'm sure Joe is just going all over the internet right now to try to find a way to prove DR wrong at this point and would never take the second to stop and think "holy shit maybe I am wrong"

---

NoMeLx22x posted...

I'm sure Joe is just going all over the internet right now to try to find a way to prove DR wrong at this point and would never take the second to stop and think "holy shit maybe I am wrong"

why would he? this thread is everything he wants right now. people wasting way to much effort arguing with him...

---

Sad_Face posted...

2) I'm not opposed to alternate solutions. More than one way to skin a cat. However, given how difficult, time consuming, and expensive it is to legitimize another solution to treating Corona chan, why spread resources thin and bring up another drug?

ivermectin, regardless of its efficacy, is not a solution unless it protects against further infection.

you're conflating "treatment" with "vaccine" here. don't do that

---

NoMeLx22x posted...

I'm sure Joe is just going all over the internet right now to try to find a way to prove DR wrong at this point and would never take the second to stop and think "holy shit maybe I am wrong"

From my workmate

https://twitter.com/mdrisette/status/1408596726445973508?s=21


---

DarkRoast posted...

I can make a meta-analysis of studies that show that eating armpit hair cures cancer.

Preordered

---

metallica846 posted...

We are at war with a virus. Its killed millions throughout the world.

People will die fighting the damn thing so that others may live. Give Ivermectin to the people with allergies and the Conscientious Objectors.

Soon: Delta++ variant

---

metallica846 posted...

We are at war with a virus. Its killed millions throughout the world.

People will die fighting the damn thing so that others may live. Give Ivermectin to the people with allergies and the Conscientious Objectors.

---

joe40001 posted...

No, decrease the number of potential vectors. That's how public health works. Nobody gives a you know what about how you've managed to rationalize your idiocy.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Because we need you to make a vaccine in six months, including rigorous clinical trials, and if anything goes wrong we are suing you to the grave isnt very reassuring.

There is a term for this line of thinking. Its called the Nirvana fallacy. The belief that if something isnt 100% safe, it shouldnt be done. The reality is that literally nothing in the world is 100% safe and 100% known to be safe over the long term. COVID-19 killed over half a million Americans; We finally got it under control with the vaccine. Sure, there could be side effects down the line. But in the real world, nothing worth doing has zero risk.

If you understand the speed and pressure of releasing these vaccines and you acknowledge there could be side effects down the line, why the aggression against those who are reluctant? Why must vaccines be the only solution? Why not engage in studies that conclusively determine the effectiveness of X generic drug? Why not have options?

averagejoel posted...

ivermectin, regardless of its efficacy, is not a solution unless it protects against further infection.

you're conflating "treatment" with "vaccine" here. don't do that

What definition of solution are we going by? I get slapped with Corona chan, I would like to not die from it or receive any permanent injuries from the virus should I survive. What do you want me to call whatever the doctor prescribes me with?

---

Why must vaccines be the only solution?

Do I need to explain the mathematics of epidemiology and disease transmission to you, or are you just going to stop now?

Let's put it this way, there's a reason you don't see cases of measles, smallpox or polio anymore. And it's not because someone found an alternative to vaccination.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Do I need to explain the mathematics of epidemiology and disease transmission to you, or are you just going to stop now?

Go for it. I would like to practice my rotting math degree.

The corona virus vaccine is more expensive and difficult to roll out and store compared to a generic drug (or potential combination of such) and we still don't have studies on its effects 3 years down the road. Here, [incomparison to your analogy of measles+smallpox+polio] we have a study on a potential alternative that shows promising results of reducing mortality rates and spread and is magnitudes cheaper and easier to manufacture and distribute. I don't understand why exploring ivermectin is such a problem.

How different would the world be if the main treatment for Covid was centered around Ivermectin versus if everyone received the vaccine? If life goes on as usual in both worlds, what's the problem?

I am not seeing the justification for pumping billions of dollars into these select companies for vaccine development if we can achieve similar effect for a drop in a bucket in comparison while said companies work on vaccine development at the traditional pace, with no substantial government subsidies.

---

Sad_Face posted...

I am not seeing the justification for pumping billions of dollars into these select companies for vaccine development if we can achieve similar effect for a drop in a bucket in comparison while said companies work on vaccine development at the traditional pace, with no substantial government subsidies.

Why take expensive antibiotics for your infection when you can just cut your arm off for cheap?

---

TC getting smacked rn lmao

It's on backorder, anyway. This does explain the people asking me for it and then getting huffy because it's prescription only.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Why must vaccines be the only solution?

Do I need to explain the mathematics of epidemiology and disease transmission to you, or are you just going to stop now?

Let's put it this way, there's a reason you don't see cases of measles, smallpox or polio anymore. And it's not because someone found an alternative to vaccination.

Idk DarkRoast, OANN told me you could just spray a bit of Windex on it and itll all go away.

If getting a doctoral level degree has taught me anything, it's that knowledge is both a blessing and a curse.


---

DarkRoast posted...

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/






Are we done here?

This is how your person sums stuff up:

So, am I rejecting this meta-analysis out of hand? Not at all, even in spite of its many flaws and the undisclosed conflict of interest! Im simply pointing out that, contrary to the language being used by Dr. Kory and his admirers to promote it, this meta-analysis is, at best, mildly suggestive that ivermectin might have activity against SARS-CoV-2. At worst, its a biased piece of scientific hackery. Certainly, given the extreme lack of biological plausibility based on the drugs pharmacokinetics, this meta-analysis is by no means the slam dunk rejoinder to skeptics of the drug that ivermectin advocates think it is.

It's also interesting how you and this person insists there is bias for ivermectin research but does not remotely entertain there is any bias against it. Considering which way the financial interests lie, if you were to be vigilant against bias you'd think you'd care about that too.

Anyway, the first quote is from: "Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz"
https://gidmk.medium.com/does-ivermectin-work-for-covid-19-1166126c364a
Who cited the NIH which says:

• "There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19." (note this statement was last updated Feb 11th)

Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz goes on to say:

1. On one side, public health experts are mostly on the fence about whether theres any use for ivermectin.
2. The second study is a reasonably good meta-analysis of ivermectin, conducted by a group of doctors that have been trying to get people to use the drug since mid last year. The authors basically used previous systematic reviews and other public archives to gather together estimates of the benefit of ivermectin on mortality and some other endpoints in all randomized controlled trials of the subject. They found that there was moderate-certainty evidence that ivermectin had a very large benefit to mortality, or in other words that it prevented people from dying from Covid-19.
3. The authors used Cochranes Risk of Bias tool to rate studies in the review, and produced the below table of the results. Some of these studies are definitely fine for example, the Mahmud study was extremely well-conducted and its hard to find fault with the authors judgement. However, there were a few studies for which the ratings seem a bit off, although its worth bearing in mind that these ratings are somewhat subjective regardless of the context (i.e. I could be wrong too).

So your source's source cites this study as a study they believe to "be extremely well-conducted and its hard to find fault with the authors judgement."
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04523831

Conclusions: Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative by RT-PCR on day 14.

Which makes their end quote about how
"you find that these high-quality studies have failed to find any benefit for ivermectin." somewhat contradictory.

Basically you found a dude who spent most of their time talking heckling twitter posts and very little on the actual substance. When talking about substantive stuff your person deferred to Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz who said "That isnt to say that the drug doesnt work. What these guidelines are pointing out is that the evidence about ivermectin generally is of extremely low quality remember, there are only a few studies with a low risk of bias! Its not that we definitely know that ivermectin is worthless, its that the evidence weve got at hand simply doesnt tell us whether the drug works or not."

And acknowledged a study which concludes "Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative by RT-PCR on day 14." to be "extremely well-conducted and its hard to find fault with the authors judgement."

It's worth noting that your original link characterizes this as "The few existing higher quality clinical trials testing ivermectin against the disease uniformly have failed to find a positive result."

So your person quotes and misrepresents Gideon who to Gideon's credit seems like a relatively honest broker.

In summary, at best you can say "the quality of the evidence isn't good enough." But even your source and your source's source doesn't think ivermectin is definitely or likely ineffective, nor do I see them claim it to be unsafe.

So your dismissal of this peer reviewed medical journal article sums up to "this one guy says it's nonsense and as a source he cites this other guy's medium article, and the second guy claims to be unconvinced by points to some studies he says are good which do show a benefit, and the second guy still says we need more better data so this first guy mis-represents this as "there is no evidence ivermectin is effective" and so there... PROVEN WRONG, WE DONE HERE?"

Reasonable people can disagree on if there could be bias (on this study or all the big pharma studies) but that means we need more good science, and considering that no reasonable people seem to be suggesting ivermectin is unsafe, AND that there is good circumstantial and peer reviewed RCT evidence of it's effectiveness your complete dismissal of it seems baseless.

Credit where credit is due section:
While I found nothing redeeming from your first link, did find the medium writeup somewhat fair. I can't say for sure if Gideon is really on point with his reasoning, but he seems to be at least trying to work in good faith. And I would be curious to hear the responses to his "hours work in Stata" reanalysis. To my intuition his weighting seems arbitrary and unclear but I am not sufficiently familiar with what his chart is meant to represent to accurately read it at this time.

Though from his funnel plot it seems like you have to remove more than 2 studies before you can bias the results to the point where things look neutral.

---

Joe ffs just stop

Discussing shit like this with you is like explaining the sky to a blind cave salamander

---

I used to wonder what it was like for climatologists dealing with climate change deniers. Well now I know.

---

soulunison2 posted...

TC getting smacked rn lmao

I don't see how. I just read through DR's link in good detail, which is more than I can say DR has done for anything they disagree with. I'm engaging the content and arguments in good faith and in detail.

I'm quite happy with how me and my argument is coming out looking. I'd much rather be where I am rather than waxing about my own "burden of doctoral knowledge".

I, unlike DR, am willing to acknowledge my potential to be wrong, and as such am far less likely to marry myself to a scientifically inaccurate idea.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Why take expensive antibiotics for your infection when you can just cut your arm off for cheap?

This might be the most quintessential straw man post I've ever seen.

---

joe40001 posted...

which is more than I can say DR has done for anything they disagree with.

lmao

Yes; the person with no knowledge on a subject has more knowledge than the person with the MD in that field.

joe, youre not the intellectual you think you are. This stuff doesnt mean what you think it means, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I know you hate admitting youre wrong, but youre wrong. Now shut the fuck up and stop spreading BS about COVID.
---

metallica846 posted...

I really hate this new gimmick Joe. Like I know you really care about other peoples health, but you are really digging deep for this shit.

So far in all your topics about the vaccines and its alternatives, the topic have all delved into you posting really long link filled posts and arguing back and forth with the same people. Do you think this is actually helping?

Kind of, it has been sisyphean for sure, but I've got to imagine seeing the same people really double down on falsities and then be shown to be inaccurate is getting through to some people.

I mean look, I just went into great detail about how DR's own source's source doesn't agree with them and this is their response:

DarkRoast posted...

I uses to wonder what it was like for climatologists dealing with climate change deniers. Well now I know.

It shows just how much they have the blinders on. It's a mindset of "It is literally impossible that anybody who disagrees with me has anything accurate or valuable to say"

You can't just give that mindset a pass, because when you do, people with that mindset make the world a worse place.

When somebody is responding to peer reviewed science with a blog post that overtly mischaracterizes things, and you point this out, and fewer seconds than it takes to even read this post the person implies you are effectively a climate change denier.

That is like the definition of bad faith uncritical thinking. And I make the world a worse place if I acquiesce to that.

People who bully through performative credentialism, or bad faith arguments, or ad hominins. Those people are not people to be endorsed, I consider it more or less a moral obligation to respond to that kind of stuff with good faith, science and critical thinking driven arguments.

I try very hard not to stoop to their bad faith levels, which I easily could. I'm not perfect, these people can get under my skin, but at least I try.

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

lmao

Yes; the person with no knowledge on a subject has more knowledge than the person with the MD in that field.

joe, youre not the intellectual you think you are. This stuff doesnt mean what you think it means, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I know you hate admitting youre wrong, but youre wrong. Now shut the fuck up and stop spreading BS about COVID.

Considering you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't even reading the medical journals or the content of the very blog posts you cite I very well might have more knowledge than you on this.

Your degree doesn't mean shit if you literally never read any sources.

Even your own sources aren't agreeing with your conclusions. Which you'd know if you actually read anything.

---

It shows just how much they have the blinders on. It's a mindset of "It is literally impossible that anybody who disagrees with me has anything accurate or valuable to say"

Conversely, just because you think you're saying something valuable doesn't mean you are.

---

DarkRoast posted...

It shows just how much they have the blinders on. It's a mindset of "It is literally impossible that anybody who disagrees with me has anything accurate or valuable to say"

Conversely, just because you think you're saying something valuable doesn't mean you are.

No, the science and data behind what I'm saying is what gives weight to my argument.

And argument without data or sources isn't much of an argument. This is something you'd know if you stopped getting your "expert doctor knowledge" from blog posts from conspiracy town

My source:
American Journal of Therapeutics
The American Journal of Therapeutics is a bimonthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering pharmacology and therapeutics.

Your source:

Science-Based Medicine (blog for New England Skeptical Society)
Science-Based Medicine is a blog dedicated to issues of science and medicine and fearlessly tackles controversial topics in medicine. SBM features a long list of health care experts in a variety of fields.

So if we want to play this BS appeal to authority ad hominim game you lose that too pretty easily.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

How are you the one saying this to someone else

It's literally the next words of the post you are quoting:

joe40001 posted...

My source:
American Journal of Therapeutics
The American Journal of Therapeutics is a bimonthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering pharmacology and therapeutics.

Your source:

Science-Based Medicine (blog for New England Skeptical Society)
Science-Based Medicine is a blog dedicated to issues of science and medicine and fearlessly tackles controversial topics in medicine. SBM features a long list of health care experts in a variety of fields.

So if we want to play this BS appeal to authority ad hominin game you lose that too pretty easily.

---

You need a fucking job or at least a hobby dude

I can't imagine spending this much time spreading idiocy on a dying message board, and I'm currently unemployed

This is just sad

---

DarthAragorn posted...

You need a fucking job or at least a hobby dude

I can't imagine spending this much time spreading idiocy on a dying message board, and I'm currently unemployed

This is just sad

*fighting idiocy.

You misspelled fighting. Because you know, I'm the one pointing to actual science and the person disputing me is pointing to blog posts they don't even read.

---