And, if they prescribe it for treating COVID, look for a better doctor.
Frankly I trust my doctor more than I trust FB, YouTube, and the government.
b) "Sixty-three patients with positive PCR result were randomized into three arms of the study. There was 1 withdrawal, thus 62 patients completed the study" [0]
c) "We cannot conclude in this study that Ivermectin has a place in prophylaxis, but this warrants investigation." [0]
[0] https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/advance-article/doi/10.1093/q...
Sounds very underpowered
That said, I was wrong, removed. I guess it's too much to ask for people to trust the recommended medicine, perhaps we should get more pro-vaccine conspiracy theories out there =/
This does not seem to match the HackerNews title very well ;)
Here's Cochran's meta-study; Cochran is, from what I can tell, very well-regarded. It appears to include this study. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
Later
For what it's worth: the boy rebuts this with the observation that you'd expect worsening symptoms for patients with actual parasitic infection, since there's an immune response to necrotic parasite tissue when ivermectin works. None of us here are ivermexperts though!
Separately, I'm having trouble parsing your comment, but I'm curious so I will ask: when you say "the boy rebuts", who is the boy here, yourself? Or..? Maybe I'm just not familiar with this turn of phrase.
Getting vaccinated.
All these kinds of comments seem premised on the idea that nobody is studying ivermectin, and that any research results, even if just in 60 patients in Lagos, must be huge news. But lots of people are studying ivermectin! If it's effective, we should be seeing clear results.
That's not my understanding from reading here: https://ivmmeta.com/
Looks at the graphs there, and then check out a few of the studies with low p-values.
There are only 31 RTC studies. Most of them are very small and not even statically significant. It is a known problem that studies that show no effect or a bad effect are never published due to report and publication bias. So it's better to ignore the not statically significant studies.
So there are only 6 of the 31 RTC studies that are statically significant. If Ivermectin has no effect, we expect to see like 1.5 studies that are "statistically significant" due to a flukes. We don't know how many other studies have been tried but never published, so let's be very conservative and assume that if Ivermectin has no effect, we would get 2 studies that are "statistically significant" due to a flukes.
There are 6. I read a few of them and have very strange things. Not smoking guns, but big red flags.
So ... can you choose your favorite 3 statistically significant? I'll dismiss 2 as flukes and hopefully I can explain why the other study has a very big red flag and is not reliable.
Big Pharma will do everything in their power, including manipulate the media, to buy time while they develop new oral Covid drugs with a slightly tweaked chemical composition (just enough for them to legally profit off it). Knowing they have a certain % of the population that will blindly follow and argue for them helps.
