The Coronavirus/COVID-19 Thread

This does not surprise me in the least. I’ve warned in the politics thread a couple of times about scam publishers and journals that basically let anyone publish anything without any review - just pay the upfront fee and there it is.

And it would definitely not surprise me one bit if some of those who had published fraudulent reports also had connections to companies that made or distributed Ivermectin.

The first two basically say ‘fraud’, the third and fourth shout ‘incompetence’, and the last one would be breech of medical ethics and lack of oversight - no-one checking protocols and procedures, which would have prevented the first two or three.

Ugh.

I mean, that’s pretty damning right there. Also, let’s hear it for grad students!

2 Likes

From the BBC article:
The hype around ivermectin - based on the strength of belief in the research - has driven large numbers of people around the world to use it.

Ivermectin is currently used for about 28% of the world’s population. Countries where COVID-19 mortality is close to zero may not have incentive to adopt treatments. When excluding these countries, ivermectin adoption is about 36%. We excluded countries where the cumulative mortality over the preceding month was less than 1 in 1 million, according to the data at https://ourworldindata.org/).

From the BBC article:
Around the world it was originally not opposition to vaccines but a lack of them that led people to ivermectin.

And Breakthrough cases are on the rise.

Again, my argument is, what is wrong with trying “whatever it takes” to survive this? Media keeps reporting that this is an “anti-vaxxer” problem. I don’t think so. Roughly 3.2 billion of the world’s population make the equivalent of $5.50 a day and they (ones who care) will try anything to not die of COVID. Are they anti-vaxxers? That’s not putting into account anyone else who can’t afford a hospital bed.

Edit:

Better cut back on your marijuana usage to get full effect of Vaccine:

The study also found that those who received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine were at a greater risk of breakthrough infection than those who received the Moderna vaccine—findings that are in line with other research that has suggested the Moderna vaccine offers more protection against highly contagious Delta variant.

Wonder if that was peer reviewed and tested by grad students…:thinking::crazy_face:

Risk-benefit analysis. Does it have proven benefits for Covid symptoms clinically? No. Are their potentially dangerous side effects? Yes. Should you therefore give this drug to desperate and already sick people as what is effectively a dangerous placebo? Not if you have any moral scruples, no.

Easy-peasy, until they let everyone flock back outside again anyway! (The air along certain parts of my commute can get pretty thick at times, to the point of making me uncomfortable - I really don’t like the smell at all.)

1 Like

So does every fda approved vaccine and therapeutic for COVID as well.

Not with the risk profile of Ivermectin, and with major benefits for prevention/reduction of severity of disease. The adverse reaction rates between ivermectin and, say, Pfizer vaccine are so far apart you’re effectively comparing apples with elephants, especially when taking into account their respective benefits relating to Covid.

Plus, there are other drugs for mitigating Covid symptoms that do actually work, so why not use those instead?

1 Like

Because most are too expensive.

Studies are still going on:

Good article:

Edit:

8,390 reports of death (0.0021%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

How many deaths from using ivermectin 🤷

Honestly not finding that source trustworthy. The whole point of the BBC article was that every single one of the studies claiming benefit for ivermectin is either fundamentally flawed or fraudulent. At this point, there really is no point in continuing studies, especially if they’re not properly structured or controlled.

You may as well give people a sugar pill and call it whatever you like - at least you wouldn’t be putting them at risk of additional complications that way.

Also, deflecting to question the FDA’s independence is not an argument in favour of prescriping ivermectin for covid sufferers (unless they also happen to have a parasitic infection).

Playing fast and loose with statistics doesn’t win the argument either. Either do the correct statistical comparison or leave the numbers out of it.

1 Like

From the BBC:
The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin’s effectiveness.

Who’s saying that the rest of the trials aren’t convincing? The BBC?

From article:
The group of independent scientists examined virtually every randomised controlled trial (RCT) on ivermectin and Covid - in theory the highest quality evidence - including all the key studies regularly cited by the drug’s promoters.

Hummm…sounds like big pharma tactics as well.

So the media knows what’s best.

Last time I’ll say this. If someone wants to take it and it works, great. If it doesn’t, They tried. If 36% of the world’s population thinks it’s in their best interest and that it could help them…go ahead. Why are we so consumed about what others are doing to save their lives?

( I took some acetaminophen and my headache hasn’t gone away)

No, obviously not. But you did at least read a little further…

No, just what real scientists without vested interests would do, and what both Big Pharma companies and the FDA are supposed to do. The only reason not to do those things in the current case would be if you had a vested interest in promoting ivermectin - say, from precription kickbacks or an ownership stake in an overseas chemical company specializing in pharmaceuticals.

The point I’ll make for the last time is simply this: we already know it doesn’t work. So why bother repeating a failed experiment, especially if there are risks associated with it?

Because the snake oil sales-weasels aren’t actually saving lives?

1 Like

I’m bored and this and other threads are dead. Went back and reread the BBC article and noticed there are no references/links to the claims. Would like to read about the (1/3 of 26) studies that are fraudulent or at least read the study these Doctors/scientists published of their findings. Like you’ve told me before…dig deeper.

The group of doctors mentioned in the paper has published in Nature Medicine. There’s one summary here:

Here’s a link to the Nature Medicine piece:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y

Hopefully this actually posts - been having a lot of problems with the post editor today.

Those 2 links, which are one in the same, are about the practicality of doing meta-analysis and using Ivermectin as an example. It’s basically an opinion piece.

It doesn’t refer to the 26 studies. There is no published results of their analysis of these 26. So, BBC quoting unpublished evidence?

The Nature Medicine link is the original from which the BBC and the other site got the information. It’s a “Letter to the Editor” from a group of doctors who performed a review of studies claiming that ivermectin was successful in treating Covid19.

The references in that letter trace back to their more detailed work. For example, reference 1 is to a critical review they wrote of the methodology in one such trial, which is located here:

Elgazzar, A. et al. Preprint at Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic | Research Square (2020).

Note that this flawed study undermines two of the meta-analysis studies claiming benefit for ivermectin, since it accounts for a large part of those studies’ observed effects.

The other references provided in the letter likewise point you back to more detailed studies, which you may or may not be able to access. (Depends on the policy of the site/journal.)

Like I said, you have to keep digging deeper. That’s the way these things work: a letter to a journal in this context is to raise attention to an issue and point people to the relevant data, not a full reserach article in and of itself.

My guess is that in this case the BBC interviewed one or more of the authors and did their own follow-up on the articles. That’s not entirely clear from the original BBC article, though - that part certainly could have been worded better.

BBC playing fast and loose with statistics.

Some statistics:
47.5% of the world population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
6.52 billion doses have been administered globally, and 24.53 millionare now administered each day.
Only 2.5% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose.

Nope.

I dug deep and found the actual BBC interview of Dr. Tess Lawrie:

Read it or not. Has a lot of info that was not put into the BBC article because it doesn’t fit the narrative. But, it does answer about the questionable Elgazzar study.

Not so fast and loose stats…

From the pharmacovigilance data on the World Health Organisation’s Vigiaccess.org

Ivermectin:
3.6 billion doses given in the last 30 years = 5,674 reported potential side effects

COVID vaccine:
6.54 billion of at least 1 shot since Dec. 11, 2020 = 2,262,130 reported potential side effects

Acetaminophen = 168,668 reported potential side effects since 1968.

Remdesivir:
approved May, 2020 = 7,491 reported potential side effects.

I’m not sure why you included those stats? First off, over a 30 year period, ivermectin would have been given for treatment of parasitic infections (not viral infections). I’m also guessing they would have been dosed and monitored accordingly, and not been in the form of pills intended for cows and horses.

Second, what has that and acetominophen stats have to do with whether or not they are effective treatments for Covid19? (Hint: absolutely nothing at all - classic ‘whataboutism’ there.) If you want to argue in good faith and be taken seriosuly, don’t do stuff like that.

I’ll read the interview details when I’m more awake and actually have time to digest it.

Here, have a beer while you wait:

Because you argued that ivermectin was dangerous compared to vaccine. :point_down:

I’m showing that it has less side effects reported even if it’s only in the time frame of doses used to combat COVID. Which was, from my digging, back in September 2020 of the first article mentioning ivermectin prescribed as a prophylactic to Covid-19.

Correct. This discussion is about the prescription of human doses, not animal pills, which is what the majority of the real debate is about. The horse pill debate is trivial and no one in their right mind should be self prescribing ■■■■ like that.

I’m just giving a stat that, comparing to ivermectin, is also more dangerous.

We will have to wait and see if this study, ACTIV-6, will answer questions:

No, I said that the risk-benefit didn’t justify using it. Because it’s definitely a non-zero risk, and has zero benefit.

Would you cover the exterior of your car or truck in sunscreen to prevent engine damage? No - complete waste of time and money, and it has some risk of affecting your paint job.

I’ll also point out (again) that those ivermectin stats are for people suffering with a parasitic infection, and not for people suffering a major viral infection that can affect pretty much every major organ in your body. Side effects between those two populations are pretty much guaranteed to occur at different rates. Again, you are making an invalid comparison.

I can’t help thinking that this is largely a result of political pandering to those clamouring loudly for hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, vitamin you-name-it, and everything else. There was a already one such trial in the UK right back at the beginning of this mess that did exactly that. In fact, my brother-in-law ended up getting the life-saving treatment he did directly because of it. Fun fact: he wasn’t being given ivermectin.

No. I see it as how aspirin has gone from a pain reliever to as well as a preventive tool against heart disease and strokes much later in studies.