Ivermectin Doesn't Prevent Severe COVID-19, New Study Finds (upi.com) 314
UPI reports on the results of a new randomized-controlled trial of ivermectin, the "gold standard" of medical research.
UPI reports that treatment with ivermectin "failed to prevent patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 from progressing to serious illness, a study published Friday by JAMA Internal Medicine found." Of 241 patients in the study with mild to moderate symptoms treated with the medication, 52, or 22% developed severe COVID-19, the data showed. Meanwhile, 43 of 249 patients, or 17%, who received "standard" treatment, including corticosteroids and, in a handful of cases, other experimental drugs, progressed to serious illness from the virus, the researchers said.
"Essentially, our study findings have dismissed the notion of ivermectin being a 'miracle drug' against COVID-19," study co-author Dr. Steven Chee Loon Lim told UPI in an email.... In addition, study participants treated with ivermectin reported more side effects than those given other drugs, Lim said. This "raises concerns about the widespread use of this drug," he said.... 14 of the ivermectin patients developed severe diarrhea and four suffered potentially life-threatening kidney damage, the researchers said.
The new study also examined whether patients had to go on a ventilator, needed intensive care or died from their infections — and discovered "there were no significant differences between groups."
And the researchers' study also points out that two additional randomized clinical trials conducted in 2021 also "found no significant effect of ivermectin on symptom resolution and hospitalization rates." UPI now quotes Dr. Lim as saying Friday that despite early hopes for ivermectin, "large and well-designed randomized clinical trials, including ours, have consistently shown that ivermectin offered little or no significant clinical benefits.
"I believe the findings in our study will likely 'close the door' on the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19."
UPI reports that treatment with ivermectin "failed to prevent patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 from progressing to serious illness, a study published Friday by JAMA Internal Medicine found." Of 241 patients in the study with mild to moderate symptoms treated with the medication, 52, or 22% developed severe COVID-19, the data showed. Meanwhile, 43 of 249 patients, or 17%, who received "standard" treatment, including corticosteroids and, in a handful of cases, other experimental drugs, progressed to serious illness from the virus, the researchers said.
"Essentially, our study findings have dismissed the notion of ivermectin being a 'miracle drug' against COVID-19," study co-author Dr. Steven Chee Loon Lim told UPI in an email.... In addition, study participants treated with ivermectin reported more side effects than those given other drugs, Lim said. This "raises concerns about the widespread use of this drug," he said.... 14 of the ivermectin patients developed severe diarrhea and four suffered potentially life-threatening kidney damage, the researchers said.
The new study also examined whether patients had to go on a ventilator, needed intensive care or died from their infections — and discovered "there were no significant differences between groups."
And the researchers' study also points out that two additional randomized clinical trials conducted in 2021 also "found no significant effect of ivermectin on symptom resolution and hospitalization rates." UPI now quotes Dr. Lim as saying Friday that despite early hopes for ivermectin, "large and well-designed randomized clinical trials, including ours, have consistently shown that ivermectin offered little or no significant clinical benefits.
"I believe the findings in our study will likely 'close the door' on the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19."
The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:4, Funny)
Well, that should shut the barn door on that foolishness.
Who am I kidding? There are two Americas. One eats horse dewormer.
k.
Re: (Score:2)
"I believe the findings in our study will likely 'close the door' on the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19."
This report will make black market sales of Ivermectin go through the roof.
Re:The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:5, Insightful)
And drinks piss, and eats dirt, and will willingly shovel down any random concoction of poisons rather than stuff that real doctors have said is safe.
Re: (Score:2)
But wearing masks? That does nothing!!
Re: (Score:3)
Those same people will cosplay in full military gear but a thin paper mask is simply too far.
Re:The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:5, Insightful)
cloth masks don't actually do anything.
(facepalm)
Imagine I've got COVID and I'm standing in front of you looking at you.
I sneeze.
Would you rather I was wearing a mask or not wearing a mask?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Until they start getting really sick, then run crying to the hospital begging for everything modern medicine has to offer (including the vaccine, too late by then though).
Funny how they have no problem with all those drugs made by "Big Pharma" keeping them alive (sometimes).
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder how many of them take one of Pfizer's other medications - Viagra?
Re: (Score:3)
"That's no reason to quit."
It's the straw that broke the camel's back.
The medical system used to run at 80-90% capacity, and COVID doubled the load.
So it had to run at 120-150%, with COVID peaks going above that.
You can do that by overworking the people in the system, by condemning people to death due to a lack of ICU beds, and by sending not-so-sick people to home treatment.
Now with Omicron, the ICUs are still filled even though there is no pressure on the normal hospital beds.
And some people that don't fi
Re: (Score:2)
There was another set of researched that showed that Ivermectin helped those people who had worms and covid. LoL.
So this just makes sense. If you have worms and covid you're likely to suffer.
Re:The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:5, Informative)
No. There was a Japanese "study" using "in vitro" analysis (read: in a petri dish) that showed ivermectin, at dosage levels that absolutely would kill any human, had a small effect on coronaviruses but did not completely kill them.
And at that point you have to remember that Fox Lies and the scam artists on talk radio/etc are selling bullshit to you, and that when you hear someone claim that a common drug "kills (disease x) in a petri dish"... SO DOES A FUCKING HANDGUN but that doesn't mean we prescribe 'getting shot in the head' as medicine. [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Regeneron and similar drugs were mentioned by Fauci, except that they rejected their use for Omicron because they were not effective against Omicron. Please try to keep up and stop repeating Fox Bullshit.
Re:The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:5, Informative)
I never heard Fox News say Ivermectin works...
"Top conservative media personalities — including Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham — have mentioned ivermectin as a drug that could possibly be used to treat Covid-19..." [cnn.com]
"Tucker Carlson Pushes Ivermectin as Treatment Option for COVID-19" [youtube.com]
"Fox News Hosts Push People To Animal Anti-Parasite Drug As Covid Medicine" [youtube.com]
As we can see from above, Anonymous Alt-Right Coward is a liar and a fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, that should shut the barn door on that foolishness.
Who am I kidding? There are two Americas. One eats horse dewormer."
The barn doesn't come into it, it's a stable.
Re: (Score:3)
If taking the human variant, on the correct dose, it probably will do em well due all the possible undiagnosed worms cases among em.
I bet all "ivermecitin lowered covid deaths" studies are probably just ivermecitin doing what it actually does, and people having a higher survival rate because don't have to face both covid and worms at the same time.
Scientific cognitive dissonance (Score:5, Insightful)
The study's own summary claims no significant, but their own data show the ivermectin group suffered a lower percentage of adverse outcomes for every outcome measured except diarhea.
WTF?
Re: (Score:3)
Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; Pâ=â.17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; Pâ=â.79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; Pâ=â.09).
The study's own summary claims no significant, but their own data show the ivermectin group suffered a lower percentage of adverse outcomes for every outcome measured except diarhea.
WTF?
HOWTO: run a "study" to discredit any potential covid drug which is not patented by Big Pharma:
1. If the drug is suspected to have antiviral properties, make sure to only test it on patients who already have progressed from the viral replication phase of the disease to the cytokine storm phase, where virus doesn't matter any more, and the drug can't work. Best if you can do the "intervention" upon admission to the hospital, doing intervention on patients who show up to the doctor with severe symptoms is a
Re: (Score:3)
I understand the "not statistically significant" aspect of this, but we've known for years that Covid has a very low mortality rate, so the question then becomes, "Why didn't the researchers use a sample size for which these results would have had better statistical power?"
With a 0.5% mortality rate, you would need somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-100x the number of samples to get a good statistical picture of the effectiveness. Why wasn't that done? It seems the researchers are either inept, or the
Re: The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:3)
Re:The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:4, Informative)
Any scientist journal investigating the efficacy of a drug for certain medical condition that refers to a compound approved to treat certain human ailments as veterinary....
Wow, brings out the entertaining loonies this. The article doesn't reference horses, so your comment is irrelevant, however it's also clear you haven't been following this closely.
Invermectin is approved for human use in some places, however it's not widely available and is unlicensed in many places [nice.org.uk] so would be expensive to obtain. On the other hand, the horse paste [bimeda.co.uk], which also contains invermectin, is a reasonably commonly used veterinary drug and is easier to obtain. This is not exactly the same as the human drug since the formulation is different.
The invermectin takers are mostly literally, really, dosing themselves with horse dewormer. The only political bias is the belief crazy people have that "the mainstream media is all out to get me".
Re:The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:5, Informative)
Invermectin is approved for human use in some places
Specifically, Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat precisely two conditions: parasitic intestinal worms, and as a topical skin cream to treat skin-based parasites. And in order to have those uses you have to have a doctor's prescription and the doses and formulations are tightly controlled.
The same is NOT true of deworming pastes and tablets that are produced for farm animals and pets. Which is important since Ivermectin is a neurotoxin that in overdose conditions can result in permanent neurological damage, if not outright death [youtube.com], and the inbred republicans who are trying to measure dosages of less-stringently-controlled product that was designed for horses (average weight 900-200 lbs depending on breed) using an eyedropper are at a pretty big risk of OD'ing and then wasting public resources on treating them, long-term care after they've made themselves into (more than they already were) useless vegetables, or burying them.
Re:The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:4, Informative)
Deaths are roughly 2200+ per day in the U.S. and most of those are due to Omicron.
Re: The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:4, Insightful)
risk taking the blood clot shot
Ohh, so risky! Remember kid: just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out for you! /s
I'm fully unvaxxed and all Omicron did was give me a vaguely sore throat for a day or two.
I got Omicron and it gave me that, plus that nice long-Covid symptom of reduced cognitive performance under stress or fatigue, which may go away in 5 to 8 months -- not a good thing when I work controlling lab machinery that can literally kill somebody if I'm not sharply attentive. I'm trying to compensate by sleeping more.
I guess you also got that, except yours is strong enough it prevents you from noticing you have it.
PS: I'm triple vaccinated, and waiting for a fourth dose in a few months. Ahh, the benefits of not being a scaredy-scared coward!
Re:The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:4, Informative)
Strictly factual, well linked comment showing what most know is true - gets repeated troll moderations. At present this shows
50% Troll
30% Informative
20% Interesting
That means it's had at least 6 troll moderations (there have to be 2 interesting and 3 informative and the moderation has taken the post down by one so there's at least one more troll mod). The expenditure of points here is almost nuclear.
Apart from the clear abuse of moderation privileges, it's interesting how much determined effort on such an obscure board there is to hide these truths. If they believed this were a scientific, sensible thing, they would simply say "yes, that's the only way to get it". However they know that we know that this is a clear sign of crazy. Given the ones pushing this know it doesn't work, they can't afford for everyone to know that what they are actually pushing is horse medicine.
Re:The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:4, Insightful)
No vaccine prevents the disease it was intended for. Rather, a vaccine charges your immune system to fight the infection once it gets in. The severity is usually affected by the vaccine. As usual, in the real world, unlike your little black and white Bunny world, there is a probability distribution associated with whether you'll get a severe Covid problem. So far, the numbers stack up against your stupidity.
Re: The verdict is "Neigh". (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe "the Faucis and Bourlas of the world" simply (and... yes... erroneously) thought too highly of the public and assumed more of us paid attention and did not sleep through our classes in school. "How vaccines work," including the fact that they aren't 100% and including what the r-number and herd immunity are, is covered in freshman bio&physiology. A couple of years later, once we had the prerequisite calculus under our belts; we calculated the probability curves for disease spread, with various vaccine efficacies, as "real world" problems for junior-level probability and statistics. One should not have to explain the obvious every time.
And before you fire off the obvious retort; no, I'm not a doctor and this wasn't medical school. In fact, I went to an engineering-focused school that offered no biological science programs at all. Those were just the standard general-ed classes that we all had to take.
I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Ivermectin is taken by people who live an a post facts alternative reality. And sort of believe the medical establishment lie to them. Are they going to be swayed by yet another serious study ? Believers are going to listen to other believers.
Lots of energy spent about nonsense. I have Brandolini's law in mind.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
Ivermectin is taken by people who live an a post facts alternative reality. And sort of believe the medical establishment lie to them. Are they going to be swayed by yet another serious study ? Believers are going to listen to other believers.
Lots of energy spent about nonsense. I have Brandolini's law in mind.
They are already claiming the study is invalid because Ivermecthine only acquires its anti COVID superpowers when take in combination with <insert name of supplement>. Arguing with COVIDiots is like an endless game of whack-a-mole.
Re: (Score:3)
Ivermectin is taken by people who live an a post facts alternative reality. And sort of believe the medical establishment lie to them. Are they going to be swayed by yet another serious study ? Believers are going to listen to other believers.
Lots of energy spent about nonsense. I have Brandolini's law in mind.
They are already claiming the study is invalid because Ivermecthine only acquires its anti COVID superpowers when take in combination with <insert name of supplement>. Arguing with COVIDiots is like an endless game of whack-a-mole.
And here's the reason why [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
These doctors of the study did not engage into this research in hope to convince street people. They did it to know if ivermectin is yes or no a good treatment for them to use in daily practice, because it's a serious chemical that has medical uses, not something that can be discarded as foolish like sacrificing chicken to the gods. Also, it's among the few things they have available at their hospital in their country (Malaysia).
Also, even "Duh!" research like "eating lots makes you fat" needs to be constan
Re: (Score:3)
Ivermectin is taken by people who live an a post facts alternative reality. And sort of believe the medical establishment lie to them. Are they going to be swayed by yet another serious study ? Believers are going to listen to other believers.
Lots of energy spent about nonsense. I have Brandolini's law in mind.
The real purpose of these kinds of studies are to protect doctors who might be sued for malpractice because they refused to prescribe ---insert name of quack cure here--- to their patients.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, that dude was denied because he was being punished. Its a simple triage calculation. Will he survive the transplant and its long term effects? As someone that will be on almost extreme immune suppresants for the rest of his life, he's gonna die if he's unvaccinated and covid shows up. Which makes him a poor candidate for transplant. Nothing personal its just the sometimes brutal calculus of triage. On a limited number of livers the unrecovered alcoholic and the antivaxer are gonna miss out unt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe, you're full of shit. Someone who refuses vaccination is absolutely a risk; not just a risk before they come in, but a risk of not following the protocols properly and wasting a limited resource, killing someone else in the process.
"Why why do they want people to have vaccinations? It's not just the COVID vaccination. It's a bunch of vaccinations, because after a transplant you become immunosuppressed. That's why: your natural immunity, which you are counting on right now? It's not there after a [youtube.com]
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe, you're full of shit. Someone who refuses vaccination is absolutely a risk; not just a risk before they come in, but a risk of not following the protocols properly and wasting a limited resource, killing someone else in the process.
"Why why do they want people to have vaccinations? It's not just the COVID vaccination. It's a bunch of vaccinations, because after a transplant you become immunosuppressed. That's why: your natural immunity, which you are counting on right now? It's not there after a transplant. So they want to increase the probability of success, because what is being transplanted is in short supply. There's giant wait lists, so they want to give that organ to the person that has the the greatest chance of success. And if you are not going to get the vaccine, your chance of success is lower. It's that simple. This isn't new, it's not news, it's been like this a long long time." [youtube.com]
Let me just add the hospital's own words [cbsnews.com] about transplant patients:
Dr. Arthur Caplan, the head of medical ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, explains that being vaccinated is necessary for this type of procedure.
"Post any transplant, kidney, heart whatever, your immune system is shut off," Caplan said. "The flu could kill you, a cold could kill you, COVID could kill you. The organs are scarce, we are not going to distribute them to someone who has a poor chance of living when others who are vaccinated have a better chance post-surgery of surviving."
Also, it should be noted the idito doesn't believe in the vaccine (didn't believe? Is he still alive?)
"It's kind of against his basic principles — he doesn't believe in it," David Ferguson says. "It's a policy they are enforcing and so, because he won't get the shot, they took him off the list (for) a heart transplant."
So the idiot doesn't believe in THIS vaccine, but has no problem with all the medicines which will need to be used on him before and during the surgery, and then for the rest of life. Makes complete sense. /s
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't refuse it because he didnt believe in vaccines, but because he was already immunocompromised.
Well look on the bright side (Score:4, Funny)
This study is biased misinformation. (Score:2, Insightful)
indicates a clear and strong bias against ivermectin on the part of the study authors.
In fact, ivermectin won a Nobel Prize for treating humans: see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/ [nih.gov]
Re:This study is biased misinformation. (Score:5, Informative)
Ivermectin is great at treating certain conditions in humans. Coronaviruses are not one of them.
Arsenic (arsenic trioxide) works as a cancer treatment. That doesn't mean you should take it for athlete's foot!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> The study authors just did a gold standard study that shows it doesn't work.
This borders on misinformation and is statistically ignorant.
241 patients is highly underpowered for a disease with a very high survival rate, even though the cohort was comorbid.
The data showed that severe disease and death were less than half in the experimental group. The p value was not large enough to draw a conclusion because the sample size was far too small.
In normal science this type of small study is 'promising' and l
Re: (Score:3)
You misunderstand the purpose of the study - this is supposed to turn up as a talking point for team A against team B.
If they were doing real science, they'd have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, rather than simply p-hacking :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr
Typical claims they did the study wrong.
Re:This study is biased misinformation. (Score:4, Informative)
The data showed that severe disease and death were less than half in the experimental group.
The fine study [jamanetwork.com]:
Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P=.25).
Who should we believe ?
Re: (Score:3)
Who should we believe ?
Click on "table 2" and its all there in a neatly arranged table. Deaths in the IVM group are more than three times lower than control group. People on vents in IVM group 2x lower than control. Not that any of it matters. This study is hopelessly underpowered.
Re: (Score:3)
The sample size was calculated based on a superiority trial design and primary outcome measure. The expected rate of primary outcome was 17.5% in the control group, according to previous local data of high-risk patients who presented with mild to moderate disease.11 A 50% reduction of primary outcome, or a 9% rate difference between intervention and control groups, was considered clinically important. This trial required 462 patients to be adequately powered. This sample size provided a level of significance at 5% with 80% power for 2-sided tests. Considering potential dropouts, a total of 500 patients (250 patients for each group) were recruited.
Re: (Score:3)
If it doesn't matter, then don't inflate the news you like behind an ungrounded ratio. When you say "Deaths in the IVM group are more than three times lower than control group," it creates the impression that IVM might be a statistically significant contributor to that outcome.
This is an interesting device. First take a comment out of context then deride the person for having taken the comment out of context. I said it doesn't matter after having pointed people to table 2 which provides statistical context.
I'll word my remarks however I please. The readers ability to understand English is none of my concern.
The sample size was calculated based on a superiority trial design and primary outcome measure. The expected rate of primary outcome was 17.5% in the control group, according to previous local data of high-risk patients who presented with mild to moderate disease.11 A 50% reduction of primary outcome, or a 9% rate difference between intervention and control groups, was considered clinically important. This trial required 462 patients to be adequately powered. This sample size provided a level of significance at 5% with 80% power for 2-sided tests. Considering potential dropouts, a total of 500 patients (250 patients for each group) were recruited.
I'll leave table 2 speak for itself as to whether or not the study was sufficiently powered to make any statistically relevant statements.
Re:This study is biased misinformation. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most importantly, you're ignorant as fuck about statistics. Sample size validity is influenced by methodology in question. A retrospective study with 241 patients may be useless, an RCT trial is not. But hey what's being enourmously biased and ignorant for a right wing idiot and projecting that onto others? Par for the course.
Who mods ignorance like this up?
Re: (Score:2)
The study authors just did a gold standard study that shows it doesn't work.
There is no definition of "gold standard" that includes an unblinded underpowered study.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This study is biased misinformation. (Score:4, Interesting)
I love how ivermectin supporters have trotted out studies with even weaker designs and samples 1/4th as big as evidence it works
There are some very interesting studies out there for early/preventative treatment.
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
but now claim to be experts on statistics to falsely claim all study designs are invalid if n=241.
I have not claimed to be an expert.
I have not asserted all study designs are invalid.
I do very much assert this study is obviously significantly underpowered and the authors should have known better from the outset. One need only look at the single digit outcomes in all categories except severe disease (two digits with a patently ridiculous 95% CI). In this study there are more than three times the number of deaths in the control than IVM group. If the study were sufficiently powered we would not be seeing "coincidences" like this.
Study design matters.
It's not even blinded let alone double blinded.
You can have an underpowered study with 2000 people, you have a representative study with 200.
Totally agree you can have an underpowered study with a million people. What matters is not what happens in other studies. It's what actually happened in this one.
But I guess if you knew that much about scientific studies, you wouldn't be obsessed with ivermectin as useful for anything beyond parasites.
I've made no claim about whether or not Ivermectin works.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, ivermectin won a Nobel Prize for treating humans
Sure, and if covid caused river blindness and elephantiasis it might be useful.
Won a Noble Prize for deworming humans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, a drug doesn't get a Nobel prize, the scientists involved with discovering the drug get the Nobel prize.
And given that the drug IS a dewormer, and that you can indeed deworm humans(I had to be as a teen, got infected somehow), I don't see why mentioning the primary use of the drug disallows it or even shows bias.
My mom takes an anti-malaria drug for her arthritis. Unlike COVID, there are full size studies showing its effectiveness there.
If you think that "dewormer drug ivermectin" is a strong bias against, consider the very title of the "study" you posted:
"Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19"
This indicates an incredibly overwhelming bias towards in that case, with the "Nobel prize", the "multifaceted"(it is, really, it treats a lot of parasites in a lot of animals including humans), and calling COVID-19 a "new global scourge".
It's also a meta study that uses discredited studies underneath it and disregards lots of readily available studies that say that IVM isn't effective. A meta study isn't very good if you only pick studies that support your side.
The door has been closed for a long time (Score:2)
“A good conspiracy is unprovable. I mean, if you can prove it, it means they screwed up somewhere along the line.”
waste of time (Score:2)
So much scientist time wasted on disproving shit wannabe scientists pulled out of their asses.
Absence of evidence vs evidence of absence (Score:2, Interesting)
I looked at this paper yesterday and the outcome is not new or surprising. Late stage study (Treatments started on average 5.1 days after exposure) and only 1000 participants total /w 1:1 allocation between the treatment and control arms. It should not be surprising to anyone this is way too under-powered from the outset to find a statistically significant (p-value <= 0.05) outcome even if you stipulate in advance one existed.
This study is not even blinded. If you did a trial of either Pfizers or Merc
Re: (Score:3)
I looked at this paper yesterday and the outcome is not new or surprising. Late stage study (Treatments started on average 5.1 days after exposure)
Of course, it always works in only the scenarios that are the most difficult to study.
It should not be surprising to anyone this is way too under-powered from the outset to find a statistically significant (p-value <= 0.05) outcome even if you stipulate in advance one existed.
Really?
Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P=.25).
That looks like plenty to me.
This study is not even blinded.
Double no, single yes:
The randomization was based on an investigator-blinded randomization list upl
It doesn't matter. (Score:2)
What the heck? (Score:2)
Noo! It can't be! (Score:2)
I heard from my coworker who heard it from their sister who heard it from their cousin who read it on Facebook that ivermectin is the holy grail of treating and preventing covid. That's what Big Pharma doesn't want you to know.
I mean all those people [thehill.com] who took [businessinsider.com] ivermetin and died [chron.com] can't be wrong, can they? If not ivermectin, can we drink our own urine [yahoo.com] to prevent covid? Is this another thing Big Pharma doesn't want us to know about?
Re: (Score:2)
I heard from my coworker who heard it from their sister who heard it from their cousin who read it on Facebook that ivermectin is the holy grail of treating and preventing covid. That's what Big Pharma doesn't want you to know.
I mean all those people who took ivermetin and died can't be wrong, can they? If not ivermectin, can we drink our own urine to prevent covid? Is this another thing Big Pharma doesn't want us to know about?
Anecdotes do not convey useful information.
Sniff... sniff... (Score:2)
FTFS:
I just love the smell of optimism in the morning. :)
Up next:
Anti-vaxxers double down on claims of Ivermectin effectiveness. Probably multiple times. And continue to get more serious COVID infections and die at higher rates than those who vaccinate, mask, distance, etc.
Ugh, why is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No zink, no intention to cure at all (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone knows that Ivermectine only works in combination with Zink. And when treated early.
Everyone does not know this. Perhaps if you can point to a study similar to this one that supports your claim people might take it seriously. The fact that you can't spell "zinc" makes your claim even more difficult to take seriously.
So if you don't do that, you're just being eager to rule out a cure, giving this disease a more important status.
Are you even attempting to make sense?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In other languages zinc is spelled Zink
And if the OP was speaking other languages you'd have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, looks like you are getting a lot of hate (at least at this moment). And it's not because other people are too stupid to detect sarcasm. It's because sarcasm is often indistinguishable from belief, when the medium is only text.
I am sure that when you typed this post you felt that the sarcasm was screamingly obvious. And now you have a hard time grasping how so many readers could be so daft as to miss it. Well, the reason is simple: there actually are people in the world who would straight-up beli
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with detecting sarcasm in that post is that what was posted actually IS something that the horse paste cult is promoting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
used in humans and has saved millions of lives (Score:4, Informative)
Effective against six parasites in humans, Invermectin has saved hundreds of millions from river blindness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
A lie by many ignorant mass media to say it's only for horses or cattle, though of course the dose for human is vastly smaller than that for half ton beast as at least two very stupid people found out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lie by many ignorant mass media to say it's only for horses or cattle.
Because people were buying stores out of the livestock version. In that case yes the media should make fun of you. Hell it was sold on Amazon and you could see the uptick in reviews. One gave me a good laugh as the buyer complained what they received was not apple flavored paste as advertised. I doubt the horse was doing any complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt the horse was doing any complaining.
I am told by horse lovers they love apples and apple flavoured sweets. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Veterinary medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
"Of 241 patients in the study with mild to moderate symptoms treated with the veterinary medication,"
Well there's the problem. They were using the version for livestock. They should have been using the version for humans, used to treat worm, mite and lice infections.
What's interesting is that the word "veterinary" was added in the /. quote but does not appear in the news article or the original paper. Perhaps it was originally in the news article and then the editor scrubbed it when the error was pointed out. However, even if it did appear in either article, I don't know if that would prove your point. Is there a difference between the livestock version and the human version other than dosage? If there were, it seems odd to call them the by the same name.
I don't know why we have any reason to assume this drug, in any form, is effective until a clinical trial suggests otherwise.
Re:Veterinary medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why we have any reason to assume this drug, in any form, is effective until a clinical trial suggests otherwise.
Because Joe Rogan says it works! [salon.com]
Look, whether or not you think Rogan should be on Spotify it should be clear that when he continues to push dangerously inaccurate medical information he deserves to be heavily criticized.
There are literally people dying because they're listening to Joe Rogan and deciding that the safer course of action is to not get vaccinated and to instead risk COVID with the assumption that ivermectin is some kind of miracle cure.
Re:Veterinary medicine (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the thing about Rogan, he not only supported vaccines back in 2020 [kare11.com], but also mocked anti-vaccination people [futurism.com].
From the first link, the entire show [youtube.com] where he supports vaccines, talks about how safe they are, and how people should get them (56:11 is when Joe says he hopes people wake up to the value of vaccines).
So the question becomes, how much did he get paid to do a 180 on vaccines and facts?
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the thing about Rogan, he not only
So the question becomes, how much did he get paid to do a 180 on vaccines and facts?
The piece you are missing is the concept of non-uniform relative risk. For many vaccination is a no brainer for others (e.g. very young and healthy, previous infection) you have to put your ear to the noise floor and try and make out a signal in terms of low benefit vs low risk. Various governments with qualified experts have come out differently on blanket vaccination of all children after evaluating data.
Rogan as far as I understand is not against vaccines and has said so repeatedly yet some people don't seem to grasp nuance everyone's situation is different and there are wildly different risk profiles between individuals. Just because something helps someone doesn't mean everyone should take it.
Posted as AC because Rogan cheerleading and or bashing is far removed from the topic at hand.
Except Rogan is almost the perfect example for this story.
The people who study this kind of stuff for a living and work really hard to understand to try and get things right are almost universally pro-Vaccine (including for young people and even children) and against Ivermectin as a COVID treatment.
Other people, like Rogan, take a cursory look at the evidence, take some advice interpreting it from extremely dubious sources, and decide that Vaccines are bad (at least for young people) and that Ivermectin is
Re: (Score:2)
So, misleading information from you and other right wing lunatics notwithstanding, his critic
Re: Veterinary medicine (Score:2)
> However, even if it did appear in either article, I don't know if that would prove your point. Is there a difference between the livestock version and the human version other than dosage?
I think the point being made (in a humorous way) is that the Slashdot summary is misinformation. It's like calling Benadryl "cat medicine". Sure, Benadryl and Ivermectin are used for mammals - cats, horses, humans. Ivermectin is widely used in humans. To such great effect the creators won a Nobel prize for it.
It's a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A coworker has taken ivermectin. Of course that was for Strongyloides, not covid. Reporting it as animal only is ignorant.
Re:Veterinary medicine (Score:5, Informative)
> article or the original paper. Perhaps it was originally in the news article
Can confirm. I cut-and-pasted the text from the UPI's news report into Slashdot's blurb (without inserting any additional words like "veterinary".) So it looks like UPI later removed the word "veterinary" -- presumably since Ivermectin is also given to humans with river blindness, and someone at UPI realized it was the smaller human dose being tested.
Slashdot's story has been updated so it also no longer contains the word "veterinary."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You guess wrong, which I expect is pretty common for your guesses. You would have to be mind numbingly stupid to think a study would get approval to use the not-approved for humans version of a drug when an approved for humans variant exists. Even stupider than expecting a slashdot summary to accurately represent the thing it links to.
Re: (Score:2)
Well when you buy this https://www.tractorsupply.com/... [tractorsupply.com] to treat covid...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... so that is what they used in the trial the article is about? they got it from tractorsupply.com?
Thanks, I didn't know that.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being obtuse. People were buying and dosing with livestock grade medication. Hence the media and rest of the country laughing.
Re: (Score:3)
The "veterinarian" adjective was added by slashdot. It is not in TFA neither the study.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly, the author of the article knows something the WHO does not?
As far as I can tell, the Slashdot submitter/editor might have added that word. It doesn't appear in the article, nor does it appear in the original study (and yes the study is available, no sign-in required).
Re:I really wonder ... (Score:4, Informative)
A: There is a population of people who believe that this drug is effective against COVID-19, and so they are happy to participate in studies where they might receive this drug. Also, there is a large population of people who are motivated by more than pure self-interest, and are willing to make personal sacrifices for the greater good (such as military personnel, fire fighters, volunteers of every variety, and participants in scientific studies).
B: There is nothing intrinsically unethical about testing important medical hypothesis on groups of volunteers, especially when the results are relevant to current events that are causing global harm.
Studies like this one DO require one to dispense with forgone conclusions. The ability to do this is a keystone of scientific investigation. Those who cannot do this will always question the legitimacy of studies that even attempt to question those forgone conclusions.
Answers (Score:2)
Well, as it regards to A, you have people so hopeful and desperate that they're taking horse versions of ivermectin to treat themselves. So the response is "lots of people, surprisingly enough"
In regards to B: It doesn't have to be low ethical standards at all. I can do a study using the "useful idiots" of A in order to try to convince MORE PEOPLE that it doesn't work.
67% nope that's not a valid conclusion (Score:2)
It looks like the study wasn't powered to show a difference at that level. If it was powered, and that difference in ICU admission was any kind of a positive finding, there would be a digit in place of "'Just over" and 3% would have one as well.
Stop trying to pull non-conclusions out of science publications. Unless you're on the peer review board for the article, and/or maybe if you're directly involved in that small sphere of science. As an AC poster, I expect you belong to neither group.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)