Ars OpenForum

Statistical said:

fraktulz said:

blackhawk887 said:

fraktulz said:

blackhawk887 said:

fraktulz said:

Independent studies show promise for Ivermectin, if we look at actual data (a summarized site pooling all studies

Click to expand...

If you summarize low quality studies you get low quality results.

If you summarize a mix of high and low quality studies, you also get low quality results.

The only way to get high quality meta-analyses is to restrict the review to high quality studies. We don't at the moment, have either of those.

And "shows promise" is a very low bar and not nearly enough to qualify as standard of care.

Click to expand...

Not at all advocating for this being first course (or even advocating this at all for treatment) but not sure how we get past the politics of this and actually get what would be considered by, let's say you, high quality analysis.

I have no dog in the fight but I can say with 100% accuracy (anecdotally) which side of the political spectrum someone falls on based on this drug alone which doesn't make for good science. I don't think monthly booster shots get's us out of this pandemic so I welcome different ideas.

Click to expand...

There is no politics in what constitutes a high quality medical study. It needs to be a clinical trial, it needs to be randomized and placebo controlled, it needs to examine relevant dosages, it needs to be double-blinded, and it needs a large sample size - at least thousands, preferably tens of thousands. This is pretty much universally accepted by scientists, regulators, and reviewers.

What gets us out of this pandemic is nearly everyone getting some immunity, either naturally or through at least 1 shot. That's pretty much what happens with influenzas, and covid is probably headed in that direction. Some people will want or need an annual shot, just like the annual flu shot. Some people won't care for the shot. Some people in both groups will get sick, and some will die.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying but we went all out with the vaccine as if Covid-19 is like influenza A or B and it's not acting like the flu so we should be doing something different but we aren't... we are talking about boosters. I'm only suggesting we try something different and instead of shooting down treatments that, admittedly, have worked for a small sample size, we should do more testing. We literally have nothing to lose... people are dying regardless. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of infected that are anti-vaxxers that would be happy to sign up for such a trial (the patient in this article being one of them).

Click to expand...

There already is a trial. It is unlikely to have more than a modest impact. Certainly not a substitute for vaccination. The patient is not indicated for the trial as his disease progression is too severe and his health too questionable. In fact being hospitalized completely excludes one from the trial entirely.

Once again we don't know if this drug will do anything to fight covid but IF it does it will be for early onset treatment. A drug to slow the spread of the virus enough to let the immune system catch up. Once the virus has fully propegated through the body the drug is unlikely to be useful. Any dosage high enough to disrupt the virus will be toxic to the host as well. Once again I caveat we don't even know for sure it does anything statistically significant that is the purpose of the trial and the vast majority of clinical trials fail.

Saying we have nothing to lose though isn't correct. Vaccination will save lives. Period. People clinging to false hope will get themselves killed.

Click to expand...

You seem like a level headed person, thanks for that. Real quick though "Once again we don't know if this drug will do anything to fight covid but IF it does it will be for early onset treatment." isn't that what the vaccine is? A prophylactic? Something that boosts the immune system?

I'm by no means an anti-vaxxer, I actually got the vaccination (although I naturally contracted Covid as well but my doctor and I discussed that a booster may help and that's enough for me to protect those I love) but to say "vaccination will save lives", while maybe true for the flu I don't even think that's provable for Covid-19 yet as we see vaccinated individuals contracting it and dying (for one instance see the Massachusetts outbreak where 75% of those infected were vaccinated".) And I'm not suggesting at all that vaccines for Covid shouldn't be taken I'm stating that it's not enough.

i don't think this is an argument of this or that but one for both (and it's anything in addition to the vaccine that I'm advocating here, not specifically Ivermectin), we shouldn't be throwing anything out that could save lives (especially if it's a prophylactic)