Meta-analysis of Ivermectin is optimistic. Very optimistic. Too optimistic?

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | Meta-analysis of Ivermectin is optimistic. Very optimistic. Too optimistic?

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #444172
      HassleCat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 7,503

      Meta-analysis involves combining information from multiple studies. This is often done to offer a Big Picture of something without relying on one particular study. Meta-analysis looks at a larger number of individuals than a single study could include, so the results often appear better. But there are problems involved with aggregating studies of different populations, performed with different methods and controls.

      Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infectio… : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)

      Meta-analysis and its problems – PubMed (nih.gov)

    • #444175
      retired liberal
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,341

      No, not. at. all.

      “… a cost of US$0.60—US$1.80 for a 5-day course of ivermectin.”

      We are an arrogant species, believing our fantasy based "facts" are better than the other person's fake facts.
      If you are wrong, it will be because you are not cynical enough.
      The older we get, the less "Life in Prison" is a deterrent.
      Always wear a proper mask when out and about. The life you save could be both yours and mine.

    • #444193
      jbnw
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,740

      the underlying analyses and those doing the analysis.

      • #444225
        GZeusH
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 4,364

        It represents a consensus opinion of all the included studies.  What consensus opinions do is average out the outliers, and so they get closer to the true value that all the studies are attempting to find.

        Corporate America consists of totalitarian entities laser-focused on short-term greed.

        If you just got finessed into calling the medicine that won the 2015 Nobel Prize for its role in treating human disease ‘horse de-wormer’ then you need to sit the next couple of plays out.

        • #444229
          HassleCat
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 7,503

          But meta-analysis has its own set of problems. It sometimes blurs important small distinctions by blending them into the larger mixture. In some cases it has produced stunning and definitive results by aggregating results that were considered mediocre by themselves. Critics say this is because meta-analysis can ignore outliers that should be examined. The harshest critics say meta-analysis is a bogus idea in itself, and is nothing more than a way to manipulate studies. I don’t know. My days of statistical analysis are behind me, but I find it interesting how conflicting studies are “resolved.”

          • #444235
            GZeusH
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 4,364

            was in a meteorology seminar.  One thing you learn in that field is that it’s really hard to beat consensus.  The most esteemed professor of meteorology can throw his forecast into the pot along with a bunch of undergraduate students taking the course for the first time, and the consensus forecast will beat them all.  The people that say meta-analysis is bogus, I would imagine that their forecasts are the worst of the outliers.

            Corporate America consists of totalitarian entities laser-focused on short-term greed.

            If you just got finessed into calling the medicine that won the 2015 Nobel Prize for its role in treating human disease ‘horse de-wormer’ then you need to sit the next couple of plays out.

    • #444202
      Hobbit709
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,649
    • #444207
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,558

      <h2>What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)?</h2>
      https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

      An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. Taking into consideration input from the FDA, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit an EUA request to FDA.

      Someone here said that Ivermectin generated $250 million a year.  Well, the Covid “vaccines” generate billions.

      America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

      Everything I post is just my opinion, and, honestly, I would love to be wrong.

      • #444219
        HassleCat
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 7,503

        The president should do an emergency authorization to allow Ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment in a clinical setting. If Merck makes some money on Ivermectin, that does not cut into the vacine makers’ profits. If the governmen continues to deny Ivermectin treatment, people will seek it on their own, and that means more overdoses from self-treatment with the livestock versions. The way to reduce that problem is to make the human formulation available through supervised treatment.

      • #444325
        lownslow
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 869

        I think you are righr, djean, also, im seeing a lot of doctors, etc on twitter say the media is craping on ivermectin and other preventative prophalaxis to make way for this twice a day pill pfiser is rushing through to approval.

    • #444213
      doh1304
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,705

      India has tried ivormectin with 100,000,000 people and gone from 32,000 cases if covid/day to 3,200. There may be a methodological error, but this would be the difinative justification for optimism.

    • #444242
      MackMarkstein
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 271

      Try as they might (the propagandists) to say that Ivermectin belief is something Qanonish and a dangerous superstition which may detour the masses from the real only way out of this pandemic, there are items like this:
      “Recently, Dr Satoshi Omura, the Nobel co-laureate for the discovery of IVM, and colleagues conducted a comprehensive review of IVM clinical activity against COVID-19, concluding that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated major reductions in mortality and morbidity [2]. Our review of that evidence, updated with consideration of several new studies, supports the same conclusion.”
      IVM = Ivermectin

      I think he got the Nobel for its effectiveness against malaria. Does the theory say it is thus effective against Covid19? No, I don’t think so, but what does anyone really know about this disease? I’m still looking for any history of when/why IVM was first tried for Covid19, but anyway, inconveniently enough, I.B. Damn if it doesn’t show signs of working:
      In case nobody’s posted this yet:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383101/

      Pro-IVM article (I wish some of the language could be a bit more objective) citing many studies and none of them were planned and executed by Yahoo News.
      Of the several authors, one admits he is part of a company that wishes to profit from IVM distribution. The rest aren’t part of such a company, are at Yale and whatnot, so, obvious crackpots (sarcasm)
      “For those that don’t know, Peru did a massive campaign with ivermectin in last half of 2020. The mortality dropped 14 fold over 3 months. A new president came in – and stopped the campaign. And deaths rose 13 fold over the next month.”
      –says Dr. Robert Malone, the discoverer of mRNA, who has been skeptical from 2020-the present regarding mRNA approach being safe and effective in a vaccine. Thus, painted as a crackpot all over our Google and Pravda.

    • #444243
      MackMarkstein
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 271

      Not having read the whole article yet, review from the Yale person, Texas A&M person, etc., I did just notice this alluding to a theory as to why IVM, dewormer and malaria champ, may also apparently be fighting Covid 19, or as Pfizer might put it, fighting Pfizer:

      “The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, as reviewed [8], possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.”

      This goes into it a lot more, ie. is a free article–the one the above quote is from is probably not free, only the abstract is:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/ this is from mid-June. From crackpots at Gandhi Medical College and such places, well interestingly I think none of the authors are American.

    • #444250
      Satan
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,307

      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". - John F. Kennedy

    • #444335
      Average Gazoo
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 574

      I hope we have good treatment options for all.

      I worked for a huge ad agency whose tagline was “The Truth Well-Told” and we all believed in that. Above the debate about efficacy of treatments and vaccines is a debate about how to achieve maximum (semi)voluntary compliance with (hopefully) effective public health initiatives. I would argue that trust is essential to having public health messages be well received.

      FDA/CDC messaging seems to have gone “all in” on vaccines and they are a great tool which in theory could blunt the need for ICU beds and treatments. We got vaccines deployed in record time and we found some effective treatments and prophylaxis — what they got wrong was messaging. Really wrong, so now they have squandered the trust they need going forward.

      In February of 2020, the CDC said “don’t wear a mask” Pelosi did a PR event maskless in Chinatown

        even as other countries were masking up and telling their people the truth

      .

      When they reversed their stance to mandatory masks indoors, they said that their initial no-mask guidance was driven by a shortage of masks and PPE for healthcare professionals in the USA. IOW they lied. They could have asked for cooperation or they could have commandeered enough asks for the professionals but they chose lying and we are all paying for that choice.

      Flash forward, 18 months later, rather than say “there are better treatment options than ivermectin” they are running this “horse dewormer” negative campaign. Rolling Stone ran a hit piece claiming that Oklahoma healthcare was jammed with ivermectin ODs — they had to retract it the next day. They lied and those lies may have kept some people from seeking out care in ERs. They didn’t fact check even the easiest parts of that story so now more people will be mistrustful of similar stories.

      More critically, Israel now says that those double dosed with Pfizer/Biontech vax back in January should now expect only 16% efficacy against symptomatic Covid. The USA is rolling out a booster program. Both of these actions confirm for many that the effect and safety of the vaccines was greatly over-hyped. They created memes claiming that the covid vaccines were just as effective as the polio vaccine so therefore all we needed was >85% vax rate to achieve herd immunity — not true.

      The cost is trust — the trust they will need to limit the damage of Covid19 and other outbreaks going forward.

      Link: Israel says 16% effective
      https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/30/israel-doubles-down-on-covid-booster-shots-as-breakthrough-cases-rise.html?recirc=taboolainternal

      Be the Change

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.