HN Explorer

6 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 27.6 ms ] thread
iab
In-vitro studies show it has antiviral effects[1] against SARS-CoV-2, at a required dosage higher than the safest achievable. If Merck says it has no statistically observable effect in a controlled trial, and the FDA discourages it's use without further study, I would say there is no widespread disinformation, but more an abundance of caution. I know many people in Southern-Africa who are taking Ivermectin as a front-line defense against COVID, but are doing so in the absence of any other treatment (Somthing must be done; this is something; therefore we must do it). Now that Sinovac is widely available and distributed, this is no longer necessary there.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19_misinforma...

shaicoleman
There are over 50 studies showing Ivermectin is effective.

https://ivmmeta.com/

iab
The largest clinical trial that I could find here have a COVID positive population of 70 people [1]. This reinforces my point I believe, in that there is no systemic anti-ivermectin bias, but there is a dearth of information wrt. dosage requirements, efficacy, etc. If larger clinical trials show that it is broadly effective - that is great news. But it would be irresponsible to recommend it as a frontline treatment without this information surely?

[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014929182...

shaicoleman
Some larger clinical trials do exist, but they are not getting published. This section of the video below discusses how a moderately large (n=600) prospective randomised controlled didn't even manage to get to the peer review stage in the major journals.

https://youtu.be/byFEU1A5MRY?t=2756

For reference, Dr. Pierre Kory testified to the US Senate about how steroids can save lives back in May 2020, when everyone else recommended against it at the time.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Kory-20...

Just in the last 48 hours, an Ivermectin crowdfunding campaigns for Ivermectin research by Dr. Tess Lawrie just got whacked without explanation.

http://web.archive.org/web/20210427180730/https://www.gofund...

https://twitter.com/EvidenceLimited/status/13934964456264867...

Regarding the dosage, FLCCC publishes a prevention and early outpatient treatment protocol:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-pl...

If you're interested, you can watch the full video where Dr. Pierre Kory discusses how financial interests has systematically corrupted the health and science fields.

https://youtu.be/byFEU1A5MRY

moistly
OP is new and posts only about ivermectin conspiracy theories. Nothing sus about that!
shaicoleman
If you prefer in video form:

https://youtu.be/byFEU1A5MRY

If you're short on time jump to this slide:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byFEU1A5MRY&t=1583s

What the WHO did to the Ivermectin evidence base?

* Single person served as Chair of Guidance Support, & member of Methods Committee, and Systematic Review Team

* Failed to publish a pre-established protocol for data exclusion

* Excluded trials.. that were included in their original Unitaid search protocol

* Excluded two "quasi-randomized" RCT's finding statistically significant lower mortality

* Excluded two RCT's compared to/given with other medications, finding statistically significant lower mortality

* Excluded up to seven or more other available Ivermectin RCT results

* Excluded all RCT's and OCT's investigating Ivermectin in the prevention of COVID-19

* Excluded 13 OCT's with over 5,500 patients, overall large reductions in mortality found

* Excluded numerous published and pre-print epidemiologic studies finding population wide mortality decreases

* Included only 3 studies such that this limited dataset allowed them to "suggest" increased harms of Ivermectin

* Graded the JAMA study as "low risk of bias" yet all independent expert reviewers have graded as high risk of bias

* Downgraded the quality of evidence on mortality due to "imprecision" despite displaying a precise estimate