Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

#21

Post by tptacek »

resource0x wrote: post #12

Much bigger study showing statistically significant benefits https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(21)00100-4/pdf

That study is included in the meta-studies discussed here, all of which apparently lose all statistically-significant support for ivermectin once the fraudulent Egyptian study is removed from the data set. You can, for instance, find the Tlaxcalan study in the Cochrane meta-study I linked upthread.

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.

Re: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

#22

Post by nradov »

yeuxardents wrote: post #19
nradov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the law. The FDA is allowed to issue EUAs even when other treatments exist.

It is you who is mistaken. 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.

No I have it exactly right and you still don't understand the law. The FDA has wide latitude in how they interpret the word "adequate". And while it's possible that ivermectin may prove effective for COVID-19 treatment, as of today it's still not formally "approved" for that use. Doctors can prescribe it to COVID-19 patients but it's considered off-label use.

Re: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

#23

Post by yeuxardents »

nradov wrote: post #22
yeuxardents wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is you who is mistaken. 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.

No I have it exactly right and you still don't understand the law. The FDA has wide latitude in how they interpret the word "adequate". And while it's possible that ivermectin may prove effective for COVID-19 treatment, as of today it's still not formally "approved" for that use. Doctors can prescribe it to COVID-19 patients but it's considered off-label use.

Except you are still dancing around the topic here. The OP being responded to here, which is clearly widely available if you pay any attention to the news, is that the mainstream, FDA, CDC and pharma companies are seeking to extremely downplay, or outright declare ivermectin to be out of line, without doing any research, AND ignoring already existing clinical studies that show it to be efficacious.

Thats the conversation, not splitting hairs on what is or is not adequate. FDA won't even seem to bother EVALUATING if it IS in fact adequate. Instead these players are acting like it does not exist, or is deadly, when it has a 30+ year history of clearly not being so.

Edit: Hence my point about the billions of dollars in loss.

Were the FDA to declare ivermectin efficacious and adequate then the EUA's would likely have to be rescinded. If not, then people would still have an alternative treatment to the vaccines, and thus pharma would lose billions to alternative treatment anyway.

Option: Take 30+ year medicine with proven track record or take experimental vaccines that have not completed FDA approval or clinical trials, no cross sectional longitudinal studies of effects?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3

Re: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

#24

Post by skyde »

rolph wrote: post #2

a) "In vitro studies have shown the efficacy of Ivermectin (IV) to inhibit the SARS—CoV-2 viral replication, but questions remained as to in-vivo applications" [0] 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 warr…

thanks

Re: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

#25

Post by throwaway224466 »

Ivermectin is proven to work, but it's out of patent. That means pharmaceutical companies can't profit from it. Hence the Ivermectin FUD campaign.

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.

Re: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

#26

Post by skyde »

nradov wrote: post #13
marricks wrote: post #6

I saw a post on NIH studies showing possible benefits and people dismissing it because it wasn't a preponderance of evidence. Totally valid to dismiss a selected sample but made me realize there was more of a basis for its usage than, let's say, bleach. 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 theorie…

This study was in vivo , not in vitro .

did you read the study? They explicitly say :"We cannot conclude in this study that Ivermectin has a place in prophylaxis, but this warrants investigation."

This does not seem to match the HackerNews title very well ;)

Re: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

#27

Post by nradov »

yeuxardents wrote: post #23
nradov wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I have it exactly right and you still don't understand the law. The FDA has wide latitude in how they interpret the word "adequate". And while it's possible that ivermectin may prove effective for COVID-19 treatment, as of today it's still not formally "approved" for that use. Doctors can prescribe it to COVID-19 patients but it's considered off-label use.

Except you are still dancing around the topic here. The OP being responded to here, which is clearly widely available if you pay any attention to the news, is that the mainstream, FDA, CDC and pharma companies are seeking to extremely downplay, or outright declare ivermectin to be out of line, without doing any research, AND ignoring already existing clinical studies that show it to be efficacious. Thats the conversa…

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. The federal government is sponsoring research. The scientific method is not instantaneous. Have a little patience.

https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...

Re: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

#28

Post by throwaway224466 »

bratao wrote: post #11

"Sample size: A convenient sample size of 60 with 20 in each arm, was planned. However, 62 were ultimately randomized." Sounds very underpowered

And yet every study backing up the efficacy and safety of the covid vaccine for particular subsets has around 20 total participants, often times with an invalid control group in place....but I'm sure you eat that up and share away

Re: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

#29

Post by nradov »

skyde wrote: post #26
nradov wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This study was in vivo , not in vitro .

did you read the study? They explicitly say :"We cannot conclude in this study that Ivermectin has a place in prophylaxis, but this warrants investigation." This does not seem to match the HackerNews title very well ;)

Yes I read the study. It involved in vivo use of ivermectin in human subjects. The study authors acknowledged that further research is needed. What's the problem?

Re: Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: RCT double-blind

#30

Post by throwaway224466 »

resource0x wrote: post #20
b0sk wrote: post #18

They are back. Spamming hacker news every day with debunked studies.

The debunking was repeatedly debunked by numerous studies.

The HN crowd is all about stats and data until it intersects with their WOKEness.
Post reply on HN