31–40 of 61 posts
"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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I believe Moderna’s Phase 3 involved 30,000 people, just FYI.
I'm talking about things like "New study for Covid vaccine use on pregnant women shows to be safe and beneficial"...then the study includes ~20 women (read that yesterday, front page of google news)
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,…
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.
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.
Some of the monoclonal antibody treatments under EUA would be closer to being at risk.
Please only take this medication by prescription from a medical doctor. Even if these results are replicated, there is a huge difference between 12mg/day IV for 5 days under medical supervision and consuming a tube of apple flavored paste containing 6 grams of ivermectin. Ivermectin is neurotoxic at high doses and can absolutely kill you.
> only take this medication by prescription from a medical doctor. And, if they prescribe it for treating COVID, look for a better doctor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Days to negative in the three trial arms: Ivermictine: avg= 6.0 95% CI= (4.61–7.38) Control: avg= 9.15 95% CI= (5.68–12.62)
there was only 20 patient in the control group this would give a margin of error of 21.91% for that 95% confidence interval.
Most statisticians agree that the minimum sample size to get any kind of meaningful result in this case would be ~385
Please only take this medication by prescription from a medical doctor. Even if these results are replicated, there is a huge difference between 12mg/day IV for 5 days under medical supervision and consuming a tube of apple flavored paste containing 6 grams of ivermectin. Ivermectin is neurotoxic at high doses and can absolutely kill you.
> only take this medication by prescription from a medical doctor. 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.
One possible explanation is the widespread use of Ivermectin in that continent (because of widespread parasites).
There are of course other reasons too. For instance, it helps that they don't have a population that is 42%+ obese. (Though Ghana is on track to soon having a similar percentage of the adult population being overweight "Rates of overweight/obesity increased nearly 139 percent over a 15-year period from 1993–2008" --- https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1864/Gha... ).