Another recent study in India showed no viral reduction in Covid patients treated with Ivermectin. Small study, only looked at viral counts, not clinical outcomes, but you can add it to the growing evidence. Notice that Lamby - I'm quite happy to point out the limitations of research - I don't take the 65 STUDIES PROVED IVERMECTIN WORKS OK approach. Critical thinking eh. It works!
The antiparasitic medicine Ivermectin did not reduce the viral load or duration of symptoms in patients with Covid-19 even at higher doses, shows a randomised controlled trial in 157 patients admitted with mild to moderate disease at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) during the...
www.hindustantimes.com
This paragraph of yours Anty is a thing of real beauty. Number 1, the study is not recent it is a February 2021 study. Number 2 Mr. " I don't take the 65 STUDIES PROVED IBERMECTIN WORKS OK approach" The 65 studies that I have linked you to before are ALL THE STUDIES on Ivermectin Dumbar$e. If you would have visited the site you could have found the study you referenced and rather than rely on research by anecdote or headline you could have read the source material and not embarrassed yourself. You will also find the Together Trial, the Lopez Medina trial, the Cochrane meta analysis and the Roman meta analysis.
The figures of improvement cited on the site (and they include 57% for mortality and 86% for prevention) are a real time analysis of the data as it is added to the site. The database is current to 4 October 2021. Accordingly the quantification of benefit takes into account the Together Trial, the Mohan trial and every other trial showing benefit or otherwise. I get a kick out of you 5 minute google warriors finding data you don't understand (8 months old) and presenting it as a 'gotcha' when I have linked to that database and told you what was on there on numerous occasions. You look ridiculously foolish and it just exposes the vast chasm in your knowledge base.
The Mohan study does show benefit of about 15% over placebo but it is not considered statistically significant. In other words you cannot discount that you get to that number by chance.
The together trial shows a reduction in mortality when using Ivermectin over Placebo of 18% but again not considered statistically significant. However when you factor in other studies that show a significant benefit and add numbers to the sample base the collective data provides evidence of efficacy and suggests that the ivermectin benefit hinted in the Together Trial is not a random outcome even though understated
You cannot look at Mohan in isolation. There is another RCT from Israel the Eli Schwarz study which does show a statistically significant reduction in viral load (you can check it on the database OF ALL STUDIES!!). Together they provide evidence of efficacy in vivo which confirms the Caly study in vitro ( you can check that on the database)
All studies have limitations and some have more flaws than others. For example the Together Trial has some data matching issues. It underdosed and also gave ivermectin on empty stomachs whereas the accepted protocol is to take it with food because tissue concentrations are 2.6% higher . This has been well known since the Guzzo study in 2013 which also found that Ivermectin is safe at 10 times the recommended dose
Safety study concluding that ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA..
c19ivermectin.com
Nevertheless even then the numbers trend towards benefit
Meta analyses tend to even out some of these flaws although rubbish in will still result in rubbish out.
So the real debate where I see it is the battle of the meta analyses. You have the Bryant, Kory US group, Lawrie group UK, Nardelli group (Italy), Hariyanto group (Japan) and Andrew Hill's analysis (WHO) that show benefit and the Roman and Cochrane studies that question it. The key is that the later meta analyses omit a lot of the data.
I am happy to have a discussion on efficacy which would basically revolve around whether the omitted trials should or should not be considered. I would hope that was science based but fear it could be political,. Anyway resolution of that discussion is probably above our pay grade but there are some very eminent people on both sides of the debate, moreso in the Ivermectin side IMO. The assessment of the strength of scientific evidence is Tess Lawrie's bread and butter even having the WHO as a client.
I despair at the deterioration of our medical institutions. The WHO did great work as did the FDA when they were exclusively publicly funded. The FDA knocked back Thalidimide for morning sickness on safety issues whereas other bodies including out TGA did not. Cochrane too was a great independent research body before money crept in. It's amazing how the pharma companies can buy legitimacy (and compliance)
Dissent over growing centralisation culminated in the expulsion of one of Cochrane’s founding members. Melanie Newman reports on the organisation’s internal struggles The dust is not yet settling on Cochrane after it expelled one of its most high profile scientists and founding fathers. Peter...
www.bmj.com
In conclusion I come back to your astonishing arrogance and then demonstrable ignorance. You denigrate the work of 655 scientists including eminent physicians and scholars including authors of the studies you find on your 5 minute google search. I think the word is wilful ignorance. I've never seen anyone revel in it more. Anyway it's exhausting correcting your homework all the time. I am going to put up a few final posts during the day and find a life away from this thread. In some ways I need to apologise. This is a footy forum after all.
