Josh wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:11 pm
However, there isn't too much risk in using an ineffective treatment.
Where I'd see the risks to primarily be, (beyond overdose) is if someone who would have benefitted from other more preventative effective actions, instead chooses to do nothing, because they think that if they do get sick, Ivermectin is a surefire cure. Or if someone takes an ineffective treatment in lieu of something that may have worked better.
Maybe Ivermectin is the best we have. I don't know. I'm just commenting about the general risk of taking something, anything, that proves to be actually ineffective.
We already have that problem
"You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations."
-Joe Biden
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:11 pm
However, there isn't too much risk in using an ineffective treatment.
Where I'd see the risks to primarily be, (beyond overdose) is if someone who would have benefitted from other more preventative effective actions, instead chooses to do nothing, because they think that if they do get sick, Ivermectin is a surefire cure. Or if someone takes an ineffective treatment in lieu of something that may have worked better.
I agree. But what other preventative effective actions are there to take once someone finds out they have a positive COVID test?
Currently, the standard treatment is "stay home and rest".
Right. Generally speaking, it doesn't seem to hurt. I don't know what else there is that is necessarily better that one can get over the counter (or at TSC).
Where I'd see the risks to primarily be, (beyond overdose) is if someone who would have benefitted from other more preventative effective actions, instead chooses to do nothing, because they think that if they do get sick, Ivermectin is a surefire cure. Or if someone takes an ineffective treatment in lieu of something that may have worked better.
I agree. But what other preventative effective actions are there to take once someone finds out they have a positive COVID test?
Currently, the standard treatment is "stay home and rest".
Right. Generally speaking, it doesn't seem to hurt. I don't know what else there is that is necessarily better that one can get over the counter (or at TSC).
Antibiotics, or a nebuliser with an inhaled corticosteroid like budesonide. That’s the regimen my business partner/friend was placed in along with ivermectin.
The over the counter stuff was zinc, vitamin D, basically some of the stuff in the FLCCC guide.
nett wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:18 pm
We already have that problem
"You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations."
-Joe Biden
How is that a straw man argument? That’s exactly what Biden said.
Making false health claims doesn’t encourage people to listen to national leaders tell us to get vaccinated. It rather encourages me to think they have no idea what they’re talking about.
GaryK wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:18 pm
What about the data you looked at is not convincing? I'm no expert in reading studies but I would have thought data showing those kind of results would be classified as getting great results.
Basically, none of these studies are well-designed studies that would normally be seen as conclusive, and other studies are showing very different results. None of these studies, actually, seems conclusive, regardless of what they are finding.
Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,25-27 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,26 shorter time to viral clearance,21 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.21,27
However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:
The sample size of most of the trials was small.
Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.
Table 2c includes summaries of key studies. Because most of these studies have significant limitations, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
GaryK wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:18 pm
What about the data you looked at is not convincing? I'm no expert in reading studies but I would have thought data showing those kind of results would be classified as getting great results.
Basically, none of these studies are well-designed studies that would normally be seen as conclusive, and other studies are showing very different results. None of these studies, actually, seems conclusive, regardless of what they are finding.
Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,25-27 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,26 shorter time to viral clearance,21 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.21,27
However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:
The sample size of most of the trials was small.
Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.
Table 2c includes summaries of key studies. Because most of these studies have significant limitations, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
I went through those tables, The varying reasons why they aren't conclusive would be meaningful if it were a single study. If you combine all of the studies that found positive effect, the only thing you can really say is "too small of a sample size". However in statistical terms, that's not enough to discount a study. A small sample size can be valid, if it is sufficiently random / diverse. My conclusion from all of those studies together is that Ivermectin appears to have some positive efficacy.
nett wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:52 pm
I went through those tables, The varying reasons why they aren't conclusive would be meaningful if it were a single study. If you combine all of the studies that found positive effect, the only thing you can really say is "too small of a sample size". However in statistical terms, that's not enough to discount a study. A small sample size can be valid, if it is sufficiently random / diverse. My conclusion from all of those studies together is that Ivermectin appears to have some positive efficacy.
I would have to see a model for combining them - a "meta-analysis" - to say one way or another. Some people are claiming a lot more than "some positive efficacy".
My guess is that "some positive efficacy" is possible, it's too early to tell. But that's very much a guess.
