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

41–50 of 61 posts

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

#41

Post by im-poor »

throwaway224466 wrote: post #34
im-poor wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Moderna’s Phase 3 involved 30,000 people, just FYI.

Do you know the control group details and when they will be complete? 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)

The government publishes all of the results. You can take a look yourself: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427

There are a lot of studies done on small sample sizes. It some sense it’s necessary: if something is unsafe on a small sample, it’s more than likely unsafe on a large sample.

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

#42

Post by gus_massa »

greenhatman wrote: post #35
tptacek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

>all of which apparently lose all statistically-significant support for ivermectin once the fraudulent Egyptian study is removed from the data set 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.

If you go to https://ivmmeta.com/ I suggest to ignore all the non RCT studies because they are usually very bad.

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.

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

#43

Post by foota »

josephcsible wrote: post #37
rbanffy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only take this medication by prescription from a medical doctor. And, if they prescribe it for treating COVID, look for a better doctor.

Trust the doctors! Unless a doctor disagrees with me, then forget that doctor and trust me instead.

It's more like, trust institutional medicine, and if your doctor doesn't, then find a new doctor.

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

#44

Post by belltaco »

josephcsible wrote: post #37
rbanffy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only take this medication by prescription from a medical doctor. And, if they prescribe it for treating COVID, look for a better doctor.

Trust the doctors! Unless a doctor disagrees with me, then forget that doctor and trust me instead.

Someone said the exact same thing to me when HCQ was pushed with bad quality studies by certain doctors to Fox News hosts who then pushed it to Trump. Higher quality studies later found it wasn't useful. So there.

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

#45

Post by belltaco »

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…

Ivermectin isn't a magic cure for covid or there wouldn't be so many trials showing it doesn't work. Even if future studies prove its useful the effect size is small. So other mitigation efforts will continue.

And Pfizer is already fully approved btw.

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

#46

Post by unanswered »

belltaco wrote: post #44
josephcsible wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust the doctors! Unless a doctor disagrees with me, then forget that doctor and trust me instead.

Someone said the exact same thing to me when HCQ was pushed with bad quality studies by certain doctors to Fox News hosts who then pushed it to Trump. Higher quality studies later found it wasn't useful. So there.

You seem to be confused. The studies which "later found it wasn't useful" were fabricated, as was discovered mere days after they hit the news. They weren't even plausible.

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

#47

Post by unanswered »

nradov wrote: post #33
throwaway224466 wrote: post #25

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…

I'm skeptical of those conspiracy theories. Merck is the biggest of pharma and they still manufacture ivermectin. Apparently they're still making some profit on it. https://www.merck.com/research-and-products/products-list/

They will make more profit on the evergreen version of ivermectin they're working on.

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

#50

Post by belltaco »

unanswered wrote: post #46
belltaco wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone said the exact same thing to me when HCQ was pushed with bad quality studies by certain doctors to Fox News hosts who then pushed it to Trump. Higher quality studies later found it wasn't useful. So there.

You seem to be confused. The studies which "later found it wasn't useful" were fabricated, as was discovered mere days after they hit the news. They weren't even plausible.

The initial studies were bad quality, they just removed the people who got admitted to ICUs from the treatment group. They were run by a doctor known to be a charlatan. They were pushed to Trump as a magic way to calm the people and market down.

I don't get why people like you think the world is so US centric. The world doesn't give a flying fuck about giving Trump a very slight lower chance of getting re-elected, much less kill their people and their economy for it. I don't see how studies across the world were fabricated, there's no reason for, say, India to kill millions of their citizens and destroy their economy by faking studies about HCQ when they don't hate Trump and may have even liked him.

You're the one that's confused, here's an analysis on HCQ from someone that has worked on drug discovery for decades.

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/hydroxychloroquine...

You're a not a drug researcher.

And I don't think Trump pushed Ivermectin? If it works so well as you think, one would think the Democrats would be all over it so they can say Biden cured Covid and restored the economy.

Post reply on HN