Current Events > Ivermectin Peer Reviewed Meta-Analysis

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 10
joe40001 06/28/21 5:27:32 AM #201:	Shadow20201 posted... Instead of finding a random journal study article that you says supports remdesivir as a cure (which really doesn't) why didn't you look up the clinical trials the FDA referred to in the release you linked to? That IS one of the clinical trials the FDA referred to. Also worth noting, since we are concerned about bias, here's the "conflict of interest" description of that study: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Spinner reported receipt of personal fees from AbbVie and grants and personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Gottlieb reported receipt of nonfinancial support from Gilead Sciences outside the current work. Dr Arribas Lpez reported receipt of honoraria from Gilead for participating in an advisory board, and his institution has received grants from Gilead for an unrelated project; he also reported receipt of grants and personal fees from ViiV and personal fees from Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Teva, and Aelix. Dr Soriano Viladomiu reported receipt of honoraria as speaker or advisor from Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Angelini, Menarini, and Shionogi. Dr Ogbuagu reported receipt of advisory board honoraria from Gilead and ViiV and speakers fees from Gilead. Dr Chai reported receipt of grant support from and advisership/consultancy for Pfizer, Gilead, Astellas, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr Bernasconi reported that his institution has received fees for his participation in advisory boards and travel grants from Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, ViiV, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sandoz. Dr Bhagani reported receipt of research support and honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Gilead Sciences and grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and ViiV. Dr Sanyal reported being employed at Sanyal Bio; receiving royalties from Elseiver and UpToDate; holding stock in Exhalenz, Akarna, Genfit, Hemoshear, Durect, and Tozoama; receiving grants from Galectin and Bristol-Myers; consulting for Conatus, Gilead, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Hemoshear, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Ardelyx, Terns, ENYO, Birdrock, Albireo, Sanofi, Janssen, Takeda, Zydus, AMRA, Poxel, Servier, Second Genome, and General Electric; receiving grants and consulting for Mallinckrodt, Salix, Novartis, and Nimbus; being principal investigator of an ongoing trial for Genfit; receiving grants and being principal investigator of an ongoing trial for Immuron; receiving grants, consulting for, and being principal investigator of ongoing trials for Echosens-Sandill and Sequana; providing advice but receiving no personal remuneration for Intercept, Galectin, Fractyl, Durect, Indalo, Allergan, Chemomab, Affimmune, Teva, BASF, Perspectum, and 89bio; and being the inventor for a patent held jointly by OWL and Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr Huhn reported that his institution received grants from Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline/ViiV, Janssen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Proteus, Lilly, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and that he received consulting fees from Gilead, ViiV, Janssen, and Theratechnologies. Dr Marty reported receipt of grants from Ansun, Chimerix, Gilead, and Merck and personal fees from AlloVir, Janssen, Kyorin, Merck, ReViral, and Symbio. Drs SenGupta, Hyland, Osinusi, Cao, Blair, Wang, Gaggar, and Brainard are employees of and own stock in Gilead Sciences. No other disclosures were reported. Funding/Support: This study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsor, in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration and investigators, designed and conducted the study. Collection of data and management of trial sites were conducted by a contract research organization (PPD) with sponsor oversight. An independent data monitoring committee reviewed trial data. All authors contributed to interpretation of the data, including sponsor coauthors. A preliminary draft of the manuscript was prepared by a writer employed by Gilead. All authors reviewed the final version of the manuscript for approval and concurred with the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. And the "Limitations" part: Limitations This study has several limitations. First, the original protocol was written when COVID-19 cases were largely confined to Asia and the clinical understanding of disease was limited to case series.19,20 This led to a change in the primary end point on the first day of study enrollment as it became clear that hospital discharge rates varied greatly across regions and the ordinal scale had become standard for interventional COVID-19 studies.11,21 Second, the study used an open-label design, which potentially led to biases in patient care and reporting of data. Third, because of the urgent circumstances in which the study was conducted, virologic outcomes such as effect of remdesivir on SARS-CoV-2 viral load were not assessed. Fourth, other laboratory parameters that may have aided in identifying additional predictors of outcomes were not routinely collected. Fifth, the ordinal scale used to evaluate outcomes was not ideal for detecting differences in patients with moderate COVID-19, especially for a clinical situation in which discharge decisions may be driven by factors other than clinical improvement. BTW, in case it wasn't clear: Remdesivir, sold under the brand name Veklury, is a broad-spectrum antiviral medication developed by the biopharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences. BuT iF yOu KnEw HoW tO rEaD sTuDiEs YoU'd KnOw ThAt. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955511624] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Shadow20201 posted... </cite> <quote>Instead of finding a random journal study article that you says supports remdesivir as a cure (which really doesn't) why didn't you look up the clinical trials the FDA referred to in the release you linked to?</quote> That IS one of the clinical trials the FDA referred to. Also worth noting, since we are concerned about bias, here's the "conflict of interest" description of that study: <quote>Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Spinner reported receipt of personal fees from AbbVie and grants and personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Gottlieb reported receipt of nonfinancial support from Gilead Sciences outside the current work. Dr Arribas Lpez reported receipt of honoraria from Gilead for participating in an advisory board, and his institution has received grants from Gilead for an unrelated project; he also reported receipt of grants and personal fees from ViiV and personal fees from Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Teva, and Aelix. Dr Soriano Viladomiu reported receipt of honoraria as speaker or advisor from Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Angelini, Menarini, and Shionogi. Dr Ogbuagu reported receipt of advisory board honoraria from Gilead and ViiV and speakers fees from Gilead. Dr Chai reported receipt of grant support from and advisership/consultancy for Pfizer, Gilead, Astellas, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr Bernasconi reported that his institution has received fees for his participation in advisory boards and travel grants from Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, ViiV, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sandoz. Dr Bhagani reported receipt of research support and honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Gilead Sciences and grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and ViiV. Dr Sanyal reported being employed at Sanyal Bio; receiving royalties from Elseiver and UpToDate; holding stock in Exhalenz, Akarna, Genfit, Hemoshear, Durect, and Tozoama; receiving grants from Galectin and Bristol-Myers; consulting for Conatus, Gilead, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Hemoshear, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Ardelyx, Terns, ENYO, Birdrock, Albireo, Sanofi, Janssen, Takeda, Zydus, AMRA, Poxel, Servier, Second Genome, and General Electric; receiving grants and consulting for Mallinckrodt, Salix, Novartis, and Nimbus; being principal investigator of an ongoing trial for Genfit; receiving grants and being principal investigator of an ongoing trial for Immuron; receiving grants, consulting for, and being principal investigator of ongoing trials for Echosens-Sandill and Sequana; providing advice but receiving no personal remuneration for Intercept, Galectin, Fractyl, Durect, Indalo, Allergan, Chemomab, Affimmune, Teva, BASF, Perspectum, and 89bio; and being the inventor for a patent held jointly by OWL and Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr Huhn reported that his institution received grants from Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline/ViiV, Janssen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Proteus, Lilly, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and that he received consulting fees from Gilead, ViiV, Janssen, and Theratechnologies. Dr Marty reported receipt of grants from Ansun, Chimerix, Gilead, and Merck and personal fees from AlloVir, Janssen, Kyorin, Merck, ReViral, and Symbio. Drs SenGupta, Hyland, Osinusi, Cao, Blair, Wang, Gaggar, and Brainard are employees of and own stock in Gilead Sciences. No other disclosures were reported. Funding/Support: This study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsor, in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration and investigators, designed and conducted the study. Collection of data and management of trial sites were conducted by a contract research organization (PPD) with sponsor oversight. An independent data monitoring committee reviewed trial data. All authors contributed to interpretation of the data, including sponsor coauthors. A preliminary draft of the manuscript was prepared by a writer employed by Gilead. All authors reviewed the final version of the manuscript for approval and concurred with the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.</quote> And the "Limitations" part: <quote>Limitations This study has several limitations. First, the original protocol was written when COVID-19 cases were largely confined to Asia and the clinical understanding of disease was limited to case series.19,20 This led to a change in the primary end point on the first day of study enrollment as it became clear that hospital discharge rates varied greatly across regions and the ordinal scale had become standard for interventional COVID-19 studies.11,21 Second, the study used an open-label design, which potentially led to biases in patient care and reporting of data. Third, because of the urgent circumstances in which the study was conducted, virologic outcomes such as effect of remdesivir on SARS-CoV-2 viral load were not assessed. Fourth, other laboratory parameters that may have aided in identifying additional predictors of outcomes were not routinely collected. Fifth, the ordinal scale used to evaluate outcomes was not ideal for detecting differences in patients with moderate COVID-19, especially for a clinical situation in which discharge decisions may be driven by factors other than clinical improvement.</quote> BTW, in case it wasn't clear: Remdesivir, sold under the brand name Veklury, is a broad-spectrum antiviral medication developed by the biopharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences. BuT iF yOu KnEw HoW tO rEaD sTuDiEs YoU'd KnOw ThAt. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 06/28/21 5:41:14 AM #202:	--- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955511770] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 06/28/21 5:59:39 AM #203:	Jesus fuck, go to bed --- https://imgur.com/VeNBg https://imgur.com/gd5jC8q https://imgur.com/PKIy7 https://imgur.com/3p29JqP <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:955511956] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Jesus fuck, go to bed</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Shadow20201 06/28/21 8:26:39 AM #204:	joe40001 posted... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/ This is a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial for ivermectin. No, it was a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial for ivermectin combined with doxycycline, an antibiotic. Is there any randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials for ivermectin alone? An important distinction. I agree that further testing is needed, but it's not the smoking gun you want it to be to prove ivermectin is effective. And fair point that study you posted was one the FDA referred to. Albeit not one that swayed their decision greatly according to their publication. Remdesivir already had a testing history that showed some efficacy against viruses similar to Covid. You act like it was approved at a high price point with a low threshold for approval but you're not factoring in the decade plus of testing it's already been through. --- czzzzzzzzzz[]:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/ 'Sir we are surrounded!' 'Excellent, then we can attack in any direction.' <cite>Shadow20201 posted [p:955513713] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/ This is a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial for ivermectin.</quote>No, it was a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial for ivermectin combined with doxycycline, an antibiotic. Is there any randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials for ivermectin alone? An important distinction. I agree that further testing is needed, but it's not the smoking gun you want it to be to prove ivermectin is effective. And fair point that study you posted was one the FDA referred to. Albeit not one that swayed their decision greatly according to their publication. Remdesivir already had a testing history that showed some efficacy against viruses similar to Covid. You act like it was approved at a high price point with a low threshold for approval but you're not factoring in the decade plus of testing it's already been through. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 06/28/21 10:00:00 AM #205:	FYI most doctors don't think Remdesivir is all that effective either. Dexamethasone is still No. 1 --- Razer Blade 15 - Core i7-9750H, 32 GB RAM (2666), RTX 2080 MQ <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:955515498] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>FYI most doctors don't think Remdesivir is all that effective either. Dexamethasone is still No. 1 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 06/28/21 7:16:33 PM #206:	https://twitter.com/BogochIsaac/status/1409647567168675845 hmm --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:955536510] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/BogochIsaac/status/1409647567168675845 hmm </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 06/28/21 7:20:36 PM #207:	Heres a link to the actual, published paper: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839 *Results* Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI 0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM. *Conclusions* In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients. Are we done now? --- Razer Blade 15 - Core i7-9750H, 32 GB RAM (2666), RTX 2080 MQ <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:955536674] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Heres a link to the actual, published paper: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839 Results Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI 0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM. Conclusions In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients. Are we done now? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
g0ldie 06/28/21 7:21:30 PM #208:	^ TC's warned --- https://imgur.com/mApEnf3 <cite>g0ldie posted [p:955536703] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>^ TC's warned </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 06/28/21 7:27:55 PM #209:	g0ldie posted... ^ TC's warned Joes probably like hah, I dont have to admit Im wrong --- Razer Blade 15 - Core i7-9750H, 32 GB RAM (2666), RTX 2080 MQ <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:955536938] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>g0ldie posted... </cite> <quote>^ TC's warned</quote> Joes probably like hah, I dont have to admit Im wrong </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Frolex 06/28/21 7:38:51 PM #210:	can't believe the liberal hivemind censored my boy like that --- https://imgur.com/HOLHd4k https://imgur.com/six2WTN <cite>Frolex posted [p:955537373] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>can't believe the liberal hivemind censored my boy like that </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 06/28/21 8:53:53 PM #211:	g0ldie posted... ^ TC's warned I mean if this is anything like the last time he was Warned people are going to keep bumping this topic until he gets back and then he's going to keep going and it's gonna hit 500. If you're gonna Warn a guy for what he's said in a topic he made the topic should be locked. There's no sensible reason to keep this topic going. --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV https://imgur.com/S1m3po4 https://imgur.com/7fCcfko <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:955540152] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>g0ldie posted...</cite> <quote>^ TC's warned </quote> I mean if this is anything like the last time he was Warned people are going to keep bumping this topic until he gets back and then he's going to keep going and it's gonna hit 500. If you're gonna Warn a guy for what he's said in a topic he made the topic should be locked. There's no sensible reason to keep this topic going.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kakapo 06/29/21 9:20:49 AM #212:	I ate dog liver treats once. They gave me a grumbly tummy for days. They were tasty though. Hopefully they work that out with the first round of clinical tests. --- Did my singing please you? No, the words you sang were wrong 24 hour party parrot <cite>Kakapo posted [p:955555853] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>I ate dog liver treats once. They gave me a grumbly tummy for days. They were tasty though. Hopefully they work that out with the first round of clinical tests. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 06/30/21 6:36:21 PM #213:	DarkRoast posted... FYI most doctors don't think Remdesivir is all that effective either. Dexamethasone is still No. 1 The point is it is literally fda approved and it's like pulling teeth to get people to consider ivermectin might be helpful. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955612829] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>DarkRoast posted... </cite> <quote>FYI most doctors don't think Remdesivir is all that effective either. Dexamethasone is still No. 1</quote> The point is it is literally fda approved and it's like pulling teeth to get people to consider ivermectin might be helpful. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 06/30/21 6:38:35 PM #214:	Shadow20201 posted... No, it was a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial for ivermectin combined with doxycycline, an antibiotic. Is there any randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials for ivermectin alone? An important distinction. I agree that further testing is needed, but it's not the smoking gun you want it to be to prove ivermectin is effective. And fair point that study you posted was one the FDA referred to. Albeit not one that swayed their decision greatly according to their publication. Remdesivir already had a testing history that showed some efficacy against viruses similar to Covid. You act like it was approved at a high price point with a low threshold for approval but you're not factoring in the decade plus of testing it's already been through. Ivermectin does have at least as long a safety history, even if it was for a different use case. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955612895] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Shadow20201 posted... </cite> <quote>No, it was a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial for ivermectin combined with doxycycline, an antibiotic. Is there any randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials for ivermectin alone? An important distinction. I agree that further testing is needed, but it's not the smoking gun you want it to be to prove ivermectin is effective. And fair point that study you posted was one the FDA referred to. Albeit not one that swayed their decision greatly according to their publication. Remdesivir already had a testing history that showed some efficacy against viruses similar to Covid. You act like it was approved at a high price point with a low threshold for approval but you're not factoring in the decade plus of testing it's already been through.</quote> Ivermectin does have at least as long a safety history, even if it was for a different use case. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 06/30/21 6:40:48 PM #215:	And now he's back. Y'all couldn't just let the topic purge, no. --- https://imgur.com/VeNBg https://imgur.com/gd5jC8q https://imgur.com/PKIy7 https://imgur.com/3p29JqP <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:955612971] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>And now he's back. Y'all couldn't just let the topic purge, no.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 06/30/21 8:54:50 PM #216:	joe40001 posted... The point is it is literally fda approved and it's like pulling teeth to get people to consider ivermectin might be helpful. Because the data doesn't back it up. That's the bottom line. A meta analysis that is heavily skewed by bad observational studies doesn't change that fact. Just like HCQ, Ivermectin is only being pushed by quacks who want to "prove experts wrong." It's so irritating having to deal with cranks coming into the hospital, demanding shit that doesn't work, and then claiming I'm part of some evil cabal. --- Razer Blade 15 - Core i7-9750H, 32 GB RAM (2666), RTX 2080 MQ <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:955617091] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>The point is it is literally fda approved and it's like pulling teeth to get people to consider ivermectin might be helpful.</quote> Because the data doesn't back it up. That's the bottom line. A meta analysis that is heavily skewed by bad observational studies doesn't change that fact. Just like HCQ, Ivermectin is only being pushed by quacks who want to "prove experts wrong." It's so irritating having to deal with cranks coming into the hospital, demanding shit that doesn't work, and then claiming I'm part of some evil cabal. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/01/21 12:20:45 AM #217:	DarkRoast posted... Because the data doesn't back it up. That's the bottom line. A meta analysis that is heavily skewed by bad observational studies doesn't change that fact. Just like HCQ, Ivermectin is only being pushed by quacks who want to "prove experts wrong." It's so irritating having to deal with cranks coming into the hospital, demanding shit that doesn't work, and then claiming I'm part of some evil cabal. So you think Remdesivir is definitely more safe and effective than Ivermectin? Because the former is FDA approved and you won't even begrudgingly say MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYBE all this heaps of evidence and good science for ivermectin might possibly be pointing towards something? --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955623496] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>DarkRoast posted... </cite> <quote>Because the data doesn't back it up. That's the bottom line. A meta analysis that is heavily skewed by bad observational studies doesn't change that fact. Just like HCQ, Ivermectin is only being pushed by quacks who want to "prove experts wrong." It's so irritating having to deal with cranks coming into the hospital, demanding shit that doesn't work, and then claiming I'm part of some evil cabal.</quote> So you think Remdesivir is definitely more safe and effective than Ivermectin? Because the former is FDA approved and you won't even begrudgingly say MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYBE all this heaps of evidence and good science for ivermectin might possibly be pointing towards something? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Serious Cat 07/01/21 12:37:42 AM #218:	https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/ Without getting into any of the other claims, the study indeed verifiably failed to declare conflicts of interest. --- I are Serious Cat This is serious thread <cite>Serious Cat posted [p:955623874] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/ Without getting into any of the other claims, the study indeed verifiably failed to declare conflicts of interest. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Frolex 07/01/21 12:50:58 AM #219:	Serious Cat posted... https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/ Without getting into any of the other claims, the study indeed verifiably failed to declare conflicts of interest. sounds like someone can't handle the heaps of evidence and good science --- https://imgur.com/HOLHd4k https://imgur.com/six2WTN <cite>Frolex posted [p:955624134] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Serious Cat posted... </cite> <quote>https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/ Without getting into any of the other claims, the study indeed verifiably failed to declare conflicts of interest.</quote> sounds like someone can't handle the heaps of evidence and good science </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/01/21 2:13:09 AM #220:	Serious Cat posted... https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/ Without getting into any of the other claims, the study indeed verifiably failed to declare conflicts of interest. Two things: 1. I think a conflict of interest is more often would be them having some financial incentive to find a certain result. They don't have money to be made from being right about this, just lives to save. That said it would be fine to include that detail as it doesn't have a huge bearing. 2. Politifact said this of lab leak: The genetic structure of the novel coronavirus, which has been shared by thousands of scientists worldwide, rules out the possibility that it was manipulated in a lab. Public health authorities have repeatedly said the virus was not created in a lab. Scientists believe the coronavirus originated in bats before jumping to humans. Experts have publicly rebuked Yans paper, and its unclear whether it was peer reviewed. The claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! (They have retracted this rating) So just know that context. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955625564] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Serious Cat posted... </cite> <quote>https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/ Without getting into any of the other claims, the study indeed verifiably failed to declare conflicts of interest.</quote> Two things: 1. I think a conflict of interest is more often would be them having some financial incentive to find a certain result. They don't have money to be made from being right about this, just lives to save. That said it would be fine to include that detail as it doesn't have a huge bearing. 2. Politifact said this of lab leak: The genetic structure of the novel coronavirus, which has been shared by thousands of scientists worldwide, rules out the possibility that it was manipulated in a lab. Public health authorities have repeatedly said the virus was not created in a lab. Scientists believe the coronavirus originated in bats before jumping to humans. Experts have publicly rebuked Yans paper, and its unclear whether it was peer reviewed. The claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! (They have retracted this rating) So just know that context. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Serious Cat 07/01/21 4:22:17 AM #221:	joe40001 posted... They don't have money to be made from being right about this, just lives to save They're antivaxxers. They don't care about saving lives. --- I are Serious Cat This is serious thread <cite>Serious Cat posted [p:955627353] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>They don't have money to be made from being right about this, just lives to save</quote>They're antivaxxers. They don't care about saving lives. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 07/01/21 1:38:29 PM #222:	https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3d5gv/ivermectin-covid-treatment-advocates-rogan-weinstein-hecker Hmm --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:955639450] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3d5gv/ivermectin-covid-treatment-advocates-rogan-weinstein-hecker Hmm </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Shezarr 07/01/21 1:41:40 PM #223:	oh joy joenumbers is unwarned --- The artist formerly known as RebelElite791 <cite>Shezarr posted [p:955639569] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>oh joy joenumbers is unwarned </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 07/01/21 2:29:25 PM #224:	Antifar posted... https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3d5gv/ivermectin-covid-treatment-advocates-rogan-weinstein-hecker Hmm "Now that scientists and physicians have saved everyone with vaccines, let's talk about this bullshit nobody needs anymore" --- Razer Blade 15 - Core i7-9750H, 32 GB RAM (2666), RTX 2080 MQ <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:955641398] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Antifar posted... </cite> <quote>https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3d5gv/ivermectin-covid-treatment-advocates-rogan-weinstein-hecker Hmm</quote> "Now that scientists and physicians have saved everyone with vaccines, let's talk about this bullshit nobody needs anymore" </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/02/21 2:32:42 AM #225:	Serious Cat posted... They're antivaxxers. They don't care about saving lives. Who is antivaxxer? Wow that's a pretty warped claim "They want to research something that isn't hyped by big pharma SURELY they don't care about science." --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955661995] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Serious Cat posted... </cite> <quote>They're antivaxxers. They don't care about saving lives.</quote> Who is antivaxxer? Wow that's a pretty warped claim "They want to research something that isn't hyped by big pharma SURELY they don't care about science." </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Serious Cat 07/02/21 5:52:50 AM #226:	joe40001 posted... Who is antivaxxer? Wow that's a pretty warped claim "They want to research something that isn't hyped by big pharma SURELY they don't care about science." The Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy is antivax. You've already been linked to the proof from their own internet site. --- I are Serious Cat This is serious thread <cite>Serious Cat posted [p:955664286] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>Who is antivaxxer? Wow that's a pretty warped claim "They want to research something that isn't hyped by big pharma SURELY they don't care about science."</quote>The Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy is antivax. You've already been linked to the proof from their own internet site. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 07/02/21 1:42:47 PM #227:	And TC's vaunted "the vaccine is dangerous" paper has been retracted for fundamentally misleading conclusions --- Razer Blade 15 - Core i7-9750H, 32 GB RAM (2666), RTX 2080 MQ <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:955674293] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote> And TC's vaunted "the vaccine is dangerous" paper has been retracted for fundamentally misleading conclusions </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/02/21 2:34:48 PM #228:	Getting something retracted from an MDPI journal is saying something, as they are borderline predatory journals. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:955676098] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Getting something retracted from an MDPI journal is saying something, as they are borderline predatory journals. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Frolex 07/02/21 4:24:29 PM #229:	COVxy posted... Getting something retracted from an MDPI journal is saying something, as they are borderline predatory journals. this just means the journal has switched sides to the liberal hivemind --- https://imgur.com/HOLHd4k https://imgur.com/six2WTN <cite>Frolex posted [p:955679636] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted... </cite> <quote>Getting something retracted from an MDPI journal is saying something, as they are borderline predatory journals.</quote> this just means the journal has switched sides to the liberal hivemind </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/03/21 3:37:55 AM #230:	DarkRoast posted... And TC's vaunted "the vaccine is dangerous" paper has been retracted for fundamentally misleading conclusions Now you are flat out lying. I never "vaunted" or even mentioned this paper. I think the vaccine is likely extremely safe, and very much worth any risk compared to risking COVID. You are strawmanning me so hard that I'm like "surely they all must be referring to something I brought up". But no, you are attacking a paper I didn't bring up and straight up lying about it. To the people in this topic who mistakenly trust you to be a good arbiter of the truth and evidence, I'd like to point their attention to how you are claiming that I "vaunted" this paper, and it's literally possible for anybody in this topic to go through and notice that I did no such thing. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955696702] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>DarkRoast posted... </cite> <quote> And TC's vaunted "the vaccine is dangerous" paper has been retracted for fundamentally misleading conclusions</quote> Now you are flat out lying. I never "vaunted" or even mentioned this paper. I think the vaccine is likely extremely safe, and very much worth any risk compared to risking COVID. You are strawmanning me so hard that I'm like "surely they all must be referring to something I brought up". But no, you are attacking a paper I didn't bring up and straight up lying about it. To the people in this topic who mistakenly trust you to be a good arbiter of the truth and evidence, I'd like to point their attention to how you are claiming that I "vaunted" this paper, and it's literally possible for anybody in this topic to go through and notice that I did no such thing. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#231	Post #231 was unavailable or deleted.
Serious Cat 07/03/21 4:07:38 AM #232:	joe40001 posted... I think the vaccine is likely extremely safe, and very much worth any risk compared to risking COVID. You might want to tell that to the antivax doctors who wrote the "study" that this topic is about. --- I are Serious Cat This is serious thread <cite>Serious Cat posted [p:955697043] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>I think the vaccine is likely extremely safe, and very much worth any risk compared to risking COVID.</quote>You might want to tell that to the antivax doctors who wrote the "study" that this topic is about. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/03/21 4:10:12 AM #233:	(To dolomedes) I literally just said something true to somebody who is lying. Like, maybe you can be justified in getting mad at DR's strawman of me, but not me myself. Since DR's strawman is promoting things I never promoted, and claiming things I never claimed, it kinda paints a clear picture of how much DR doesn't give too much of a shit about actual truth. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955697078] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>(To dolomedes) I literally just said something true to somebody who is lying. Like, maybe you can be justified in getting mad at DR's strawman of me, but not me myself. Since DR's strawman is promoting things I never promoted, and claiming things I never claimed, it kinda paints a clear picture of how much DR doesn't give too much of a shit about actual truth. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/03/21 4:39:26 AM #234:	Serious Cat posted... You might want to tell that to the antivax doctors who wrote the "study" that this topic is about. You strike me as personal capable of being fair an level headed so let's be honest about the truth. It's a meta-analysis of many studies, studies that are completely independent of the funding group, and studies that showed positive results for ivermectin The funding only occurred after the preprint was done The e-bmc seems to be Tess Lawrie's group, not a group containing every doctor involved in the meta-analysis It seems to be Tess Lawrie acting as director of the group who is expressing her serious doubts about COVID vaccine safety. I do not see any evidence that she is "anti-vaxx" overall. I do not believe the evidence currently supports the claim she makes in her letter. But I am not here sharing her letter, I am sharing a peer reviewed meta-analysis. And if we were talking logically even if she argued for other things that were completely nonsensical that would not mean everything she touches is wrong. https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 Saying "this meta-analysis is anti-vaxx" is like 8 levels of bad faith. We are talking about a meta-analysis of many good studies that point to comparable or more efficacy than remdesivir, and again it seems like the main purported counter-evidence is ad hominin attacks. I don't think DR is capable of acknowledging how ad hominin is not a logically sound counter-argument to good science, but I hope you can. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955697374] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Serious Cat posted... </cite> <quote>You might want to tell that to the antivax doctors who wrote the "study" that this topic is about.</quote> You strike me as personal capable of being fair an level headed so let's be honest about the truth. It's a meta-analysis of many studies, studies that are completely independent of the funding group, and studies that showed positive results for ivermectinThe funding only occurred after the preprint was doneThe e-bmc seems to be Tess Lawrie's group, not a group containing every doctor involved in the meta-analysisIt seems to be Tess Lawrie acting as director of the group who is expressing her serious doubts about COVID vaccine safety. I do not see any evidence that she is "anti-vaxx" overall. I do not believe the evidence currently supports the claim she makes in her letter. But I am not here sharing her letter, I am sharing a peer reviewed meta-analysis. And if we were talking logically even if she argued for other things that were completely nonsensical that would not mean everything she touches is wrong. https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 Saying "this meta-analysis is anti-vaxx" is like 8 levels of bad faith. We are talking about a meta-analysis of many good studies that point to comparable or more efficacy than remdesivir, and again it seems like the main purported counter-evidence is ad hominin attacks. I don't think DR is capable of acknowledging how ad hominin is not a logically sound counter-argument to good science, but I hope you can. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Serious Cat 07/03/21 5:32:38 AM #235:	joe40001 posted... And if we were talking logically even if she argued for other things that were completely nonsensical that would not mean everything she touches is wrong. I'm also not going to trust her data analysis skills. Both her antivax letter and Ivermectin study seem to suffer from the same problems. --- I are Serious Cat This is serious thread <cite>Serious Cat posted [p:955697839] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>And if we were talking logically even if she argued for other things that were completely nonsensical that would not mean everything she touches is wrong.</quote>I'm also not going to trust her data analysis skills. Both her antivax letter and Ivermectin study seem to suffer from the same problems. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/03/21 6:34:25 AM #236:	Serious Cat posted... I'm also not going to trust her data analysis skills. Both her antivax letter and Ivermectin study seem to suffer from the same problems. And if it were just her riffing that would be one thing, but there are several other authors (she isn't even the lead author) and it went through peer review. Don't you think if there were major errors it 1. Wouldn't have gotten through peer review and 2. Would have been ripped to shreds by all the people who want to debunk it? Finally, we have to keep in mind even if you say "because she was involved and I don't trust her judgement, I don't trust the meta-analysis", that still doesn't have any repercussions for the studies the analysis is over. I can appreciate healthy skepticism on all things, but I don't like skepticism when it's only used as a tool to dismiss the things that go counter narrative. Nobody here would apply 1/1000th of this effort into trying to debunk the effectiveness of the COVID vaccines, and because humans were involved I'm sure you could make ad hominin attacks there too. It would be one thing if Ivermectin was falling way short of standards that everything else was soaring clean past, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. It seems like information is still overall a bit more limited than we would like, but when it comes to something like remdesivir we are assuming extremely effective/safe until proven otherwise, and when it comes to ivermectin we are assuming extremely unsafe/ineffective until proven otherwise. And like, this could be something in the global arsenal that could legitimately help fight COVID. So why are we trying to shut that down? Is it some confused tribalism? Whatever it is, IMO it's not a good thing. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955698366] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Serious Cat posted... </cite> <quote>I'm also not going to trust her data analysis skills. Both her antivax letter and Ivermectin study seem to suffer from the same problems.</quote> And if it were just her riffing that would be one thing, but there are several other authors (she isn't even the lead author) and it went through peer review. Don't you think if there were major errors it 1. Wouldn't have gotten through peer review and 2. Would have been ripped to shreds by all the people who want to debunk it? Finally, we have to keep in mind even if you say "because she was involved and I don't trust her judgement, I don't trust the meta-analysis", that still doesn't have any repercussions for the studies the analysis is over. I can appreciate healthy skepticism on all things, but I don't like skepticism when it's only used as a tool to dismiss the things that go counter narrative. Nobody here would apply 1/1000th of this effort into trying to debunk the effectiveness of the COVID vaccines, and because humans were involved I'm sure you could make ad hominin attacks there too. It would be one thing if Ivermectin was falling way short of standards that everything else was soaring clean past, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. It seems like information is still overall a bit more limited than we would like, but when it comes to something like remdesivir we are assuming extremely effective/safe until proven otherwise, and when it comes to ivermectin we are assuming extremely unsafe/ineffective until proven otherwise. And like, this could be something in the global arsenal that could legitimately help fight COVID. So why are we trying to shut that down? Is it some confused tribalism? Whatever it is, IMO it's not a good thing. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scar the 1 07/03/21 8:20:53 AM #237:	Hang on, wasn't a big criticism of the meta analysis that it had cherry picked a bunch of really crappy studies --- Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:955699571] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Hang on, wasn't a big criticism of the meta analysis that it had cherry picked a bunch of really crappy studies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Frolex 07/03/21 8:52:00 AM #238:	scar the 1 posted... Hang on, wasn't a big criticism of the meta analysis that it had cherry picked a bunch of really crappy studies Yes. joenumbers response is to just keep saying the words "good science" and hope no one notices. --- https://imgur.com/HOLHd4k https://imgur.com/six2WTN <cite>Frolex posted [p:955699979] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted... </cite> <quote>Hang on, wasn't a big criticism of the meta analysis that it had cherry picked a bunch of really crappy studies</quote> Yes. joenumbers response is to just keep saying the words "good science" and hope no one notices. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/03/21 8:52:04 AM #239:	joe40001 posted... Don't you think if there were major errors it 1. Wouldn't have gotten through peer review Lol... --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:955699981] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>Don't you think if there were major errors it 1. Wouldn't have gotten through peer review</quote> Lol... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Serious Cat 07/03/21 9:08:18 AM #240:	joe40001 posted... Would have been ripped to shreds by all the people who want to debunk it? It has been ripped to shreds. --- I are Serious Cat This is serious thread <cite>Serious Cat posted [p:955700222] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>Would have been ripped to shreds by all the people who want to debunk it?</quote>It has been ripped to shreds. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/04/21 3:19:04 AM #241:	Serious Cat posted... It has been ripped to shreds. What is the most concrete criticism you can even offer for it? --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955727115] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>Serious Cat posted... </cite> <quote>It has been ripped to shreds.</quote>What is the most concrete criticism you can even offer for it? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/04/21 3:25:49 AM #242:	scar the 1 posted... Hang on, wasn't a big criticism of the meta analysis that it had cherry picked a bunch of really crappy studies Considering what passes as great science when it comes to remdesivir these are definitely not crappy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/ Is a really good study. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955727202] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted... </cite> <quote>Hang on, wasn't a big criticism of the meta analysis that it had cherry picked a bunch of really crappy studies</quote> Considering what passes as great science when it comes to remdesivir these are definitely not crappy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/ Is a really good study. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Serious Cat 07/04/21 3:58:27 AM #243:	joe40001 posted... What is the most concrete criticism you can even offer for it? They're cherry-picked small studies with no consistency between how each study is conducted. --- I are Serious Cat This is serious thread <cite>Serious Cat posted [p:955727595] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>What is the most concrete criticism you can even offer for it?</quote>They're cherry-picked small studies with no consistency between how each study is conducted. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
teep_ 07/04/21 5:30:09 AM #244:	but you guys forgot the magic word! meta analysis Ergo, it's flawless! --- Stand Proud <cite>teep_ posted [p:955728566] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>but you guys forgot the magic word! meta analysis Ergo, it's flawless!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 07/04/21 5:36:03 AM #245:	"I think vaccines are good, but I will spend months arguing that somehow prophylactics might be just as good" --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:955728616] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>"I think vaccines are good, but I will spend months arguing that somehow prophylactics might be just as good" </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/05/21 4:54:41 AM #246:	hockeybub89 posted... "I think vaccines are good, but I will spend months arguing that somehow prophylactics might be just as good" Yes, and? --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955758940] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>hockeybub89 posted... </cite> <quote>"I think vaccines are good, but I will spend months arguing that somehow prophylactics might be just as good"</quote>Yes, and? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 07/05/21 4:58:10 AM #247:	joe40001 posted... I'd much more trust somebody who didn't go to medical school we noticed --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgur.com/yPw05Ob <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:955758969] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>I'd much more trust somebody who didn't go to medical school</quote>we noticed </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/05/21 5:39:15 AM #248:	DarkRoast posted... Heres a link to the actual, published paper: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839 *Results* Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI 0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM. *Conclusions* In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients. Are we done now? And this isn't "cherry picked" because...? --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955759355] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>DarkRoast posted... </cite> <quote>Heres a link to the actual, published paper: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839 Results Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI 0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM. Conclusions In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients. Are we done now?</quote> And this isn't "cherry picked" because...? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 07/05/21 5:53:26 AM #249:	joe40001 posted... Yes, and? And that's ridiculous and stupid. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:955759507] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted... </cite> <quote>Yes, and?</quote>And that's ridiculous and stupid. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joe40001 07/06/21 4:51:54 AM #250:	hockeybub89 posted... And that's ridiculous and stupid. How so? How does it make sense to argue that we should only have 1 tool to solve a problem when 2 might be available? Considering how serious the problem is I can't fathom why people would want to reject any potential tool. --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:955790991] in Ivermectin... [t:79531697]...</cite> <quote>hockeybub89 posted... </cite> <quote>And that's ridiculous and stupid.</quote> How so? How does it make sense to argue that we should only have 1 tool to solve a problem when 2 might be available? Considering how serious the problem is I can't fathom why people would want to reject any potential tool. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 10

Current Events > Ivermectin Peer Reviewed Meta-Analysis (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Ivermectin Peer Reviewed Meta-Analysis