Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

Post by unanswered » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #9

Hopefully the NIH funded ACTIV-6 Trial will provide more definitive evidence on Ivermectin, given that it is a US based study and has 15,000 participants. However, I don't know how the trial stacks up against prior work in terms of dose, and the estimated completion date is DEC 2022. https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi... https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530

Post by phonypc » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

penultimatebro wrote: post #69

phonypc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That website is such obvious bunk that I'm close to assuming anyone still linking it is literally a paid shill. They still have a copycat up in hcqmeta.com touting similar claims for hydroxychloroquine. And a dozen other drugs/vitamins. Here's a nice read on the subject: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1422044335076306947.html

There you have it... if one dares to post anything that conflicts with the official narrative, you are a paid shill. Even if that post is literal science like the comment above which is a collection of studies on Ivermectin.

Post by readflaggedcomm » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

ivraatiems wrote: post #59

didjathinkmess wrote: post #55

Why take the biased article at its word? Luckily we have access to all of these studies and can do the research ourselves (thanks Internet!) https://ivmmeta.com/ The current count of medical studies that show Ivermectin being beneficial for treating or preventing COVID-19 is 64. Out of those 64, 44 of them are peer reviewed. Or we could throw the baby out with the bathwater because this article cherry picked a few of…

How do we know that this article is biased and yours is not? Why should we trust this source and not the one linked above?

Post by __del__ » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 8:26 PM UTC

frazbin wrote: post #76

Say it with me folks: horse dewormer.

Post by murphy214 » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

marklubi wrote: post #24

kdtop3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point of the article is that if some government DID spend the money to properly research this, it would take time, as in MANY years. I remember many decades ago that Vitamin E was thought to be a great supplement to reduce coronary heart disease etc. It was then studied by following 10,000 people for 4.5 years [1] and it was determined that the hint of benefit seen in observational studies turned out to b…

> it would take time, as in MANY years So just like the time required to create the COVID vaccines that are "safe" and "effective"? Snark aside, I'm exhausted hearing how hard it is to do some things, but other's are "science" and don't warrant further exploration.