Ivermectin proves ineffective against covid 19

[Deleted member 586536]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
Well I wish I could color myself surprised. But I am not. This is a study involving 3515 people, so sample size is a non issue. Done as a double blind experiment, and randomized, which all prevents possible coloring of outcomes from patients knowing if it's one or the other.
End result of the experiment is that Ivermectin does not help period. It might as well be the equivalent of a placebo at best, and at worst, sligtly increases the odds of death while having covid.

So... People that recommended Ivermectin in the past, got told it was ineffective, and didn't listen. Are you still going to use Ivermectin?

 

[appleburger]

I wouldn't go as far to say the sample size is a "non-issue", given the scale, but this does line up with what we've been seeing so far.

The interpretation of the results with most studies has been sound in the scientific community - it's some of the public that did a very poor job at that, far as I can tell.

We've seen ivermectin help with symptoms for folks that had parasites in addition to COVID, so it made sense to record that it was specifically helping with symptoms people were experiencing.

We then saw that get interpreted into a lot of nonsense by people who lack the ability to infer reality from information & jumping to a lot of conclusions. Classic correlation vs. causation - something most of us should have learned in middle school. That's very lazy thinking, and given the situation at hand - is flat out irresponsible, imo.

Education is important, folks. The lack of reading comprehension and understanding why we use Science to learn in the first place is clearly leading to a lot of lag when it comes to people actually knowing what they're talking about.

Science hasn't changed. It's always been iterative. It's not supposed to immediately give us answers. It's not a special group of people. It's a process, and a tool because we are not good at learning what's real without actually breaking reality down and slowly reaching a conclusion with logic rather than our assumptions.

Unfortunately, ignorance and pride are still clearly holding us back as a whole when it comes to understanding how we actually learn about how everything works. Science doesn't always lead us to an ideal answer, but it's track record is a hell of a lot better than "intuition" and pride has produced.

So yeah, Ivermectin is not what some have tried to claim it is, and they've been fighting the research the whole way without even realizing it.

 

[linuxares]

and everyone say "NO SHIT!"

 

[appleburger]

This study also calls out the previous studies - looks like one was removed due to suspected malfeasance. Good to know.

I do wish they mentioned limitations of the study; that's something I'm used to seeing in these. I would think the geographic location of these trials would impact results, since depending on any other health issues the population happens to be dealing with could mess with findings, depending on how the results are measured and how well we control for those other potential health issues - but that's just my assumption. I don't really know any better.

Good stuff, though. Always happy to see more research helping clear the air.

 

[djpannda]

but... but unsourced Facebook post and Russian trolls says it works...

 

[Glyptofane]

So... People that recommended Ivermectin in the past, got told it was ineffective, and didn't listen. Are you still going to use Ivermectin?

It's effective as a prophylactic according to this study so still no, I would not take Ivermectin regularly to prevent a common cold.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/821...3128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

 

[Deleted member 586536]

It's effective as a prophylactic according to this study so still no, I would not take Ivermectin regularly to prevent a common cold.

to be clear on the specifics to my statement on "recommending", it's strictly applying to using Ivermectin while you have covid19, since right wing individuals here in the states (I really don't think I'll have to name them. If not I'll describe if asked) were recommending it while having covid, not before infection.

 

[smf]

to be clear on the specifics to my statement on "recommending", it's strictly applying to using Ivermectin while you have covid19, since right wing individuals here in the states (I really don't think I'll have to name them. If not I'll describe if asked) were recommending it while having covid, not before infection.

If you're riddled with parasites then taking ivermectin to kill them off so you're healthier to fight off covid19 is probably a good idea. Anyone saying they are taking it is a little revealing of course.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I would not take Ivermectin regularly to prevent a common cold

Is that implying covid19 is the equivalent of the common cold/ contrasting covid to the common cold?
If so it is not the equivalent to the common cold, common cold. Covid and all previous varients have killed over 5 million people worldwide.
If it's not what your saying, I apologize for jumping the gun a little, but so many have died. (my friends mother died of it. My mom lost their best friend to it. And one of my coworkers nearly died from it/hospitalized. common cold does not do that shit)

 

[impeeza]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
Well I wish I could color myself surprised. But I am not. This is a study involving 3515 people, so sample size is a non issue. Done as a double blind experiment, and randomized, which all prevents possible coloring of outcomes from patients knowing if it's one or the other.
End result of the experiment is that Ivermectin does not help period. It might as well be the equivalent of a placebo at best, and at worst, sligtly increases the odds of death while having covid.

So... People that recommended Ivermectin in the past, got told it was ineffective, and didn't listen. Are you still going to use Ivermectin?

that "medicine" is for treat animals parasites (yes you and me we are animals) for the human spice is used on lices for some canines for fleas for others canines is venom. so what in the hell have the parasites is related to a virus?

is like the toilet paper again.

 

[subcon959]

I have some issues with that study's methodology. It seems they basically administered 3 doses over 3 days per patient. Why did they choose that protocol? The whole point was to see if there was any significant effect on Covid, not to treat a standard simple parasitic infection. The protocol should've been changed to suit the application. Also. they were doing multiple interventions at once which is a big no if you're looking to establish a sound conclusion on just one of them.

 

[RocaBOT]

I'm pretty sure they chose their protocol according to the posology that was advocated by those who were adamant it works.
And oh, what a surprise, it does not. Who could have thunk!

 

[zfreeman]

Why did they wait for 7 days of symptoms? This study from January says that it's better used as a prophylactic.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/

 

[subcon959]

Why did they wait for 7 days of symptoms? This study from January says that it's better used as a prophylactic.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/

It's important to also see if there is post-infection therapeutic value as that would be more useful. They already missed the boat for prophylactic use.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Why did they wait for 7 days of symptoms? This study from January says that it's better used as a prophylactic.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/

It's important to also see if there is post-infection therapeutic value as that would be more useful. They already missed the boat for prophylactic use.

I'm pretty sure they chose their protocol according to the posology that was advocated by those who were adamant it works.
And oh, what a surprise, it does not. Who could have thunk!

Last post is the reason why it was not used as a prophylactic. The likes of Jo Rogan, and others, recommended it while having covid, not before or after

 

[sith]

pretty obvious it is a dosage issue, as a prophylactic the dosage is much too high, thats why pfizer's "paxlovid" protease inhibitor is basically ivermecton (actually PF-07321332, also a 3-C Protease inhibitor but not identical), mixed with ritonavir to extent its metabolic half-life and increase serum concentrations, this is indicated for acute symptomatic treatment not preventative application and if ivermection were to work well i would guess it would be at frequent and high dosages.

 

[AlexMCS]

Have you all even read the article?

1. The actual sample size was 1358, 679 ivermectin x 679 placebo.

2. Check the tables.
The study, like many others, is dismissing the results based on "statistical significance" instead of net results, which clearly shows ivermectin is better than placebo (10% effectiveness).

(BTW, the people in this particular study, and in particular, the lead scientist Gilmar Reis, had a secret goal: to push fluvoxamine as the actual treatment, which was the crux of a previous study of his funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is why that was the group with most individuals - 784 - which isn't even mentioned in the article other than a table entry, as seen by his own admission in here - .)

What I've seen in person over here is that the best usage for ivermectin is using it at the onset of symptoms. It has a definitive positive impact, even if small, as shown by a plethora of studies already.
If using it as a prophylactic, you get exposed to higher risk of adverse effects, so I'd advise against it.

As a final note, these kinds of studies should be conducted by actual statisticians, not physicians dabbling with statistics, since the end result is based on statistics not medicine. The medical doctors should be the support to evaluate the data.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Quo bono.

The fact that this nobel-price winning substance has been ridiculed to the highest degree, shows you that media is in bed with pharma.

"You have the flu? Stay in bed and drink a lot of water"
"Hahaha! You mean the thing that lazy people do? and the stuff you wash your car with? Hahaha!"

This was the media coverage in a nutshell.

 

[Xzi]

The fact that this nobel-price winning substance has been ridiculed to the highest degree, shows you that media is in bed with pharma.

Only the people claiming that an anti-parasitic drug is effective at treating a virus are being ridiculed, and rightly so. COVID really opened our eyes to how many people failed middle school biology.

 

[The Catboy]

This isn't a shock for anyone who actually listened to professionals last year. It was stupid and didn't work back then and it's stupid and doesn't work now.