Current Events > Ivermectin Peer Reviewed Meta-Analysis

(+) Yeah! (+)

BTW I do have a job.

But yeah, I need a better hobby, because my time could be better spent.

---

Literally anywhere else, doing anything else. Just leave, joe.

---

I, for one, find these displays quite fascinating and have trouble looking away.

---

Jabodie posted...

I, for one, find these displays quite fascinating and have trouble looking away.

Like, am I wrong tho?

Because I want to know if I'm wrong.

I can totally see somebody saying "the case for ivermectin is currently overstated". I think that's a reasonable stance. But considering it's safety and the evidence showing it's value, to say "it shouldn't even be in the toolkit for fighting COVID among people who can't get vaccinated or are vaccine skeptical" that I don't understand at all.

Unless you are one of those "let the covid anti-vaxxers die" people, which like is shitty, but at least kinda makes sense in a punitive hateful way.

I mean I was right about my stance of lab leak and Reuters, I feel I have a pretty good record. So idk.

Am I wrong somewhere?

---

Joe you need to cut this shit out. Holy christ dude

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Yes

I was asking Jabodie.

I am aware of your opinion and have assigned it appropriate measure in my judgements.

---

Did you guys watch the video? In the analysis, Campbell goes over that the trials were not standardized in terms of their usage of Ivermectin. For instance, it was used in a combination of drugs like HCQ for one trial versus being used without HCQ in another. The conclusion never insinuated that "Ivermectin is 100% decisively effective against Corona chan" but highlighted that this drug is worth exploring further. If this isn't science, then what is? I don't understand why people are coming in and saying OP is getting decimated in this discussion.

---

Sad_Face posted...

Did you guys watch the video? In the analysis, Campbell goes over that the trials were not standardized in terms of their usage of Ivermectin. For instance, it was used in a combination of drugs like HCQ for one trial versus being used without HCQ in another. The conclusion never insinuated that "Ivermectin is 100% decisively effective against Corona chan" but highlighted that this drug is worth exploring further. If this isn't science, then what is? I don't understand why people are coming in and saying OP is getting decimated in this discussion.

I'm afraid very few of them actually watched the video. I shared the video from Dr. John Campbell because he seems very level headed in his summaries of things and not at all prone to hyperbole.

It's a very sober representation of the science as we know it. Which is, approximately: "By all indications ivermectin is quite safe and affordable, and shows promise as a tool in fighting COVID."

---

joe40001 posted...

I was asking Jabodie.

I am aware of your opinion and have assigned it appropriate measure in my judgements.

Frankly, I have neither the education or career experience to comment on anything related to medicine. I've never even taken a course in organic chemistry.

---

Jabodie posted...

Frankly, I have neither the education or career experience to comment on anything related to medicine. I've never even taken a course in organic chemistry.

Fair enough. Though I don't think it requires too much to read scientific articles with critical thinking. I very much respect people who are able to say "I don't know well enough one way or the other."

---

joe40001 posted...

Though I don't think it requires too much to read scientific articles with critical thinking.

Oof.

---

joe40001 posted...

I very much respect people who are able to say "I don't know well enough one way or the other."

Lol

---

I honestly can't tell if he's a parody of someone who thinks he's smart or not.

---

This is still the most pathetic gimmick but it is hilarious having his trolls garner lots of posts

joe40001 posted...

Though I don't think it requires too much to read scientific articles with critical thinking

jfc

---

also: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/

---

Congratulations joenumbers, your only supporter in this topic is an unapologetic pizzagater.

---

ssk9716757 posted...

jfc

It's true though.

They are written in english, I can read english. any jargon or concept I'm unfamiliar with I can look up.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/

That's all written in English. I can read all of it just fine and I'm no biology expert. Just a competent person able to read science and think critically.

---

ssk9716757 posted...

also: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/

Yep:

• A 5-day course of IVM resulted in faster virologic clearance than placebo, but not a faster time to resolution of symptoms (fever, cough, and sore throat). Because time to virologic clearance is not a validated surrogate marker for clinical efficacy, the clinical efficacy of IVM is unknown.

---

joe40001 posted...

It's true though.

They are written in english, I can read english. any jargon or concept I'm unfamiliar with I can look up.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/

That's all written in English. I can read all of it just fine and I'm no biology expert. Just a competent person able to read science and think critically.

thinking critically about studies requires more than just being able to read the language its written in. you also need the skills and knowledge to pick up on the nuances of whether a study was properly designed and statistically analyzed.

see the link I posted above that describes the limitations in most of the major studies done on ivermectin. there is no grand conspiracy to suppress it. therere just people who cant interpret studies adequately.

---

joe40001 posted...

Yep:
* A 5-day course of IVM resulted in faster virologic clearance than placebo, but not a faster time to resolution of symptoms (fever, cough, and sore throat). Because time to virologic clearance is not a validated surrogate marker for clinical efficacy, the clinical efficacy of IVM is unknown.

this would be one of those cases where not being a biology expert is letting you down.

---

ssk9716757 posted...

this would be one of those cases where not being a biology expert is letting you down.

I hate it when people don't just say their meaning.

If you think I'm wrong about something, say what I'm wrong about.

And the link you shared supports me, it says "here are some studies, many show promise for ivermectin, and these are their limitations."

What's the problem with that?

---

ssk9716757 posted...

thinking critically about studies requires more than just being able to read the language its written in. you also need the skills and knowledge to pick up on the nuances of whether a study was properly designed and statistically analyzed.

And if we were talking about a super nuanced discussion I'd agree, but we aren't. There's basically nobody saying it's unsafe, it's very cheap, and lots of data points to it being effective.

The idea that "this is something worth investigating because it shows real promise" is not a nuanced argument.

If DR was coming in and saying things like "no no no, because of the viral load coefficient we should expect a blood oxygen level of .95 and not .94 the fact that we don't see this is evidence there is a problem" that is the kind of shit that yeah I'd need expertise to counter.

But DR's response was a blog post full of twitter quotes almost exclusively about narrative framing and emotion and I had to click through to DR's sources source to get to any meat and potatoes data.

From how DR responded it was clear they were not reading any of the links, they didn't listen to the NPR interview on lab leak, they don't even read the abstracts, and yes, any human can read and understand abstracts, and if those abstracts get published in peer reviewed journals that constitutes some evidence that there is something there.

There is a level of discourse where I'd be out of my depth, but I have yet to encounter somebody on CE who talks on that level. It's mostly people like DR who doesn't seem to read anything including methodology or even the basic abstract.

PS: I'm not lumping you into that. So far you seem reasonable and I have no reason to think you are unreasonable.

---

joe40001 posted...

It's true though.

They are written in english, I can read english. any jargon or concept I'm unfamiliar with I can look up.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/

That's all written in English. I can read all of it just fine and I'm no biology expert. Just a competent person able to read science and think critically.

There's a lot of field specific background knowledge necessary to be able to critically assess any scientific paper (how does this fit within extant literature? What are the limitations of particular methodologies? Etc). There's also a lot general background knowledge necessary to be able to critically assess any scientific paper (experimental design, statistical methods, inference).

I mentor students (undergraduates and postbacs, primarily) who spend years in the lab and only start feeling comfortable critically reading papers after years in the lab. And that's after a lot of direct mentorship and participation and observation of journal clubs.

You, at best, have techbro syndrome. Overconfidence in your lack of expertise, thinking that you materially contribute without actually doing the leg work necessary.

---

joe40001 posted...

I hate it when people don't just say their meaning.

If you think I'm wrong about something, say what I'm wrong about.

And the link you shared supports me, it says "here are some studies, many show promise for ivermectin, and these are their limitations."

What's the problem with that?

the limitations are enough to throw the benefits they show into question. the fact that you take unknown clinical efficacy as some validation instead of what any clinician would regard it as (no solid evidence) is the issue

---

Joe, I literally have three degrees in this very subject and I STILL consider my knowledge on good study design inadequate.

The fact is that you have no idea how little you know about a subject until you go to school and learn it correctly. Only then can you retroactively assess your level of incompetence in that field. You're unable to parse quality evidence from bad evidence because your understanding of what is "quality" seems to be "is it in a quality journal." Which, I'll grant you, is much better than what most people think, but this review/analysis is a perfect example of how the devil is in the details (or rather, methodology) and understanding how those methods greatly diminish the actual conclusion is important.

I do believe you're trying to discuss "science" correctly, but without those foundations you're going to inevitably be wrapped up by things like this.

There are plenty, and I do mean PLENTY, of "bad" papers in "good" journals. That's where concepts like generalizability, prospective analysis, clinical relevance, etc become especially important to know. If I published a paper that said that aboriginal Australian populations experienced increased blood pressure with cyclobenzaprine, that can't automatically be applied to the general population.


---

DarkRoast posted...

Joe, I literally have three degrees in this very subject and I STILL consider my knowledge on good study design inadequate.

The fact is that you have no idea how little you know about a subject until you go to school and learn it correctly. Only then can you retroactively assess your level of incompetence in that field. You're unable to parse quality evidence from bad evidence because your understanding of what is "quality" seems to be "is it in a quality journal." Which, I'll grant you, is much better than what most people think, but this review/analysis is a perfect example of how the devil is in the details (or rather, methodology) and understanding how those methods greatly diminish the actual conclusion is important.

Ill add onto this that Im a licensed pharmacist and I often feel the way you do as well.

so by my count thats three different people in this topic who could all claim to have some level of expertise in this area who are disagreeing with this guy, and hes still insisting that all you need to analyze a study is to be able to read English.

---

ssk9716757 posted...

the limitations are enough to throw the benefits they show into question. the fact that you take unknown clinical efficacy as some validation instead of what any clinician would regard it as (no solid evidence) is the issue

It's not settled but there's a signal pointing in the direction of it showing efficacy. Did you read the summaries from the others? It's a lot of signal there pointing in a positive direction.

Like tell me anything wrong with this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/

People like COVxy suggest I'm basically too dumb to have any informed opinion and only those the gatekeepers allow get to have opinions. But that we should also throw out the opinions of the sufficiently credentialed who have heterodox opinions on it.

It seems much more like a gatekeeping exercise than a good faith appeal to scientific accuracy.

It's known to be cheap and safe, there is good signal it could be effective. Why throw out all the babies with the bathwater because of some people's skepticism?

Why is DR's blog of twitter posts of some people attacking it beyond reproach but all the other people very well credentialed people pointing towards it's efficacy wrong?

I'm done playing the appeals to authority game, or the gatekeeping game. Little old me was able to correct Reuters on a data point, institutions aren't bastions of scientific integrity, many of them are populated by people like DR, who should care about science but instead refuses to read and responds emotionally and insultingly to evidence they don't like.

Considering the costs, potential benefits, and extremely low risk (particularly compared to other interventions we currently employ like remdesivir) rejecting it as a option worth serious investigation seems ignorant and immoral.

---

If you think it is unsafe, make that claim.
If you think it is not relatively cheap, make that claim.
If you think it couldn't plausibly help us in the fight against covid, make that claim.

If you aren't making any of those 3 claims. Then you aren't disagreeing with me at all.

---

joe40001 posted...

People like COVxy suggest I'm basically too dumb to have any informed opinion

No, I'm suggesting you don't have enough information to have an informed opinion. I don't doubt that if you spent years in school and training in a lab, you'd be well equipped to talk about this.

---

COVxy posted...

No, I'm suggesting you don't have enough information to have an informed opinion. I don't doubt that if you spent years in school and training in a lab, you'd be well equipped to talk about this.

So what do you make of the people who have done that who come to different conclusions than you?

---

joe40001 posted...

If you think it is unsafe, make that claim.
If you think it is not relatively cheap, make that claim.
If you think it couldn't plausibly help us in the fight against covid, make that claim.

If you aren't making any of those 3 claims. Then you aren't disagreeing with me at all.

The entire purpose of ivermectin, and HCQ before it, is:




---

I mean, she basically sums up Joe's topics

---

Don't forget the validation of feeling smarter than those damn doctors.

---

joe40001 posted...

It's not settled but there's a signal pointing in the direction of it showing efficacy. Did you read the summaries from the others? It's a lot of signal there pointing in a positive direction.

Like tell me anything wrong with this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/

People like COVxy suggest I'm basically too dumb to have any informed opinion and only those the gatekeepers allow get to have opinions. But that we should also throw out the opinions of the sufficiently credentialed who have heterodox opinions on it.

It seems much more like a gatekeeping exercise than a good faith appeal to scientific accuracy.

It's known to be cheap and safe, there is good signal it could be effective. Why throw out all the babies with the bathwater because of some people's skepticism?

Why is DR's blog of twitter posts of some people attacking it beyond reproach but all the other people very well credentialed people pointing towards it's efficacy wrong?

I'm done playing the appeals to authority game, or the gatekeeping game. Little old me was able to correct Reuters on a data point, institutions aren't bastions of scientific integrity, many of them are populated by people like DR, who should care about science but instead refuses to read and responds emotionally and insultingly to evidence they don't like.

Considering the costs, potential benefits, and extremely low risk (particularly compared to other interventions we currently employ like remdesivir) rejecting it as a option worth serious investigation seems ignorant and immoral.

ok here are just the first things I noticed on that study:

1. was the placebo group given placebos for both doxy and IVM? or just one or the other?
2. how did they control for determining what portion of the benefit came from doxy vs IVM?
3. if these are only patients with mild to moderate Covid symptoms why are they in the hospital, seemingly for multiple days?
4. they considered the date of random assignment in the study to be day 1, how did they control for differences in where patients were in terms of course of infection?
5. they report a median reduction of 2 days in recovery time. is this clinically (not statistically) significant when their symptoms were only mild/moderate?
6. like the limitations on other studies, PCR results are not considered an acceptable show of clinical efficacy

thats just what i immediately noticed. youre throwing a lot around about gatekeeping but thats exactly why we have medical professionals go through a rigorous licensing process before being allowed to dispense advice, you cant just have people giving out recommendations willy nilly.

---

Basically

---

DarkRoast posted...

The entire purpose of ivermectin, and HCQ before it, is:

It's weird how even after all this time you make this a political thing even though I'm not republican and I don't do the things you suggest.

I never said the election was stolen, I never advocated HCQ, I've never hyped anything bogus.

You keep seeing this as a tribal war between informed democrats, and ignorant Trumper republicans, and you just lazily put me and anybody who disagrees with you in the latter column.

It's a shallow and inaccurate reading of reality. Not everybody who disagrees with you is an ignorant, bad faith, completely misinformed Trump supporter. In fact I'd expect very few people who disagree with you are that way.

You likely should spend less time on twitter though, it seems to be warping your perceptions of valid arguments. Science, reality, and logic aren't political, please stop trying to act that way.

It's weird how the last post in that twitter thread applies so much more to you than me. Are you even willing to acknowledge you could be wrong about any of this? I am:

"I currently believe the evidence points to ivermectin being effective at reducing the effects or spread of COVID, this is not a certainty by any measure, but it where my reading of the science I think points to being most likely. I could be wrong about this, and it could be the case that Ivermectin is not effective in reducing the effects or spread of COVID."

If you are having a disagreement with somebody, and you are saying one of you is deliberately unwilling to admit you are wrong, but you won't even admit you could be wrong. I've got bad news, you're the badies in that scenario.

---

joe40001 posted...

It's weird how even after all this time you make this a political thing even though I'm not republican and I don't do the things you suggest.

lmfao

---

joe40001 posted...

I could be wrong about this, and it could be the case that Ivermectin is not effective in reducing the effects or spread of COVID."

Good, now go away already, jesus.

---

ssk9716757 posted...

ok here are just the first things I noticed on that study:

1. was the placebo group given placebos for both doxy and IVM? or just one or the other?
2. how did they control for determining what portion of the benefit came from doxy vs IVM?
3. if these are only patients with mild to moderate Covid symptoms why are they in the hospital, seemingly for multiple days?
4. they considered the date of random assignment in the study to be day 1, how did they control for differences in where patients were in terms of course of infection?
5. they report a median reduction of 2 days in recovery time. is this clinically (not status ally) significant when their symptoms were only mild/moderate?
6. like the limitations on other studies, PCR results are not considered an acceptable show of clinical efficacy

I really respect this response. I will go through it and try to see if I can follow through, but NGL you might the first person who has responded to things I've said on these matters in a concrete good faith way and I really appreciate it. Even if it leads to me having to alter my perspective due to your analysis, I'd much rather than responses like the one you posted than bad faith ad hominins, which is what I usually get and it's awful.

Thank you for reading and responding in good faith, I sincerely respect and value you response.

---

AldousIsDead posted...

Good, now go away already, jesus.

Self awareness enough to know you could be wrong is a strength, not a weakness.

Anybody who refuses to acknowledge their own capacity for error is not somebody to respect the opinions of.

---

Joe, can you address what I have brought up many times in this topics about how even if ivermectin can protect against COVID, it's still not permanent like a vaccine? Ivermectin is a prophylactic that you take before entering a risk area. That might work for someone who interacts with society once or twice a year, but not the 99.5% of people who regularly interact on planet Earth.

Or is the implication that ivermectin was secretly the vaccine/cure for a future virus the whole time?

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Joe, can you address what I have brought up many times in this topics about how even if ivermectin can protect against COVID, it's still not permanent like a vaccine? Ivermectin is a prophylactic that you take before entering a risk area. That might work for someone who interacts with society once or twice a year, but not the 99.5% of people who regularly interact on planet Earth.

Or is the implication that ivermectin was secretly the vaccine/cure for a future virus the whole time?

1. I don't think people definitely know or claim the vaccines are permanent.
2. I believe the thinking is many people would take prophylactic ivermectin until cases completely went away. It, like vaccines, would be a tool to hopefully drive COVID19 to extinction.

---

joe40001 posted...

1. I don't think people definitely know or claim the vaccines are permanent.
2. I believe the thinking is many people would take prophylactic ivermectin until cases completely went away. It, like vaccines, would be a tool to hopefully drive COVID19 to extinction.

In the general concept of vaccines, they are intended for long term prevention.

Think of any disease that we have virtually eradicated thanks to vaccines, do you think taking prophylactics until cases pretty much disappeared would serve the same purpose? Do vaccines even have a point then?

Do you truly believe everyone against vaccines would definitely take a pill indefinitely for the same intent? Why?

---

It's June 27th, 2021, and the Mods still actively choose to let joe numbers get away with this shit.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

In the general concept of vaccines, they are intended for long term prevention.

Think of any disease that we have virtually eradicated thanks to vaccines, do you think taking prophylactics until cases pretty much disappeared would serve the same purpose? Do vaccines even have a point then?

Do you truly believe everyone against vaccines would definitely take a pill indefinitely for the same intent? Why?

They'd do it if those GOD DAMN LIBRULS told them not to. Just look at people like joenumbers.

---

Or god forbid you misspell a swear. Cue the pearl clutching.

---