Can you source in google scholar or pubmed? I have no way of knowing the standards used by websites like these, and find almost all of them to be spin doctors at best and outright liars at worst. Looking at them is a waste of time unless sourced to peer reviewed studies (again google scholar or pubmed will find them)
Ivermectin >> vaccine wrote:
Harambe: You say you are open to looking at Ivermectin studies. Well here is a very good source.
https://c19ivermectin.com/A quote from the IVMmeta.com site which was written in November, prior to more positive studies emerging, "Ivermectin is effective for COVID-19. 100% of studies report positive effects. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 26 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 67 million (p = 0.000000015).
Also shows studies indicating the efficacy of Vitamin D as both prophylaxis and treatment.
https://c19vitamind.com/And debunks your dismissal of HCQ. 100% of studies for HCQ taken early show efficacy. Taken later is a mixed bag.
https://c19study.com/
I have looked at the research in Google scholar and pubmed by the way. There are negative studies on both. The studies on hydroxychloroquine are really quite concerning, which is why it has fallen out of favor. Ivermectin does not have as much in the way of negative or worrying studies. It may prove to be of some benefit. Not a miracle cure by any means though.
The ivermectin "meta-analysis" posted above is from the same folks who pushed HCQ for months until big trials showed it sucked.
I have strong doubts about their curation and analysis.
For example one of the "best" RCTs they cite is:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v2
Which just compares ivermectin to HCQ. I suspect a lot of things will look better than HCQ! (Also has many primary outcomes... easy to fish for a positive). It's not a trial against standard of care but they happily lump the data in and claim benefit.
bartholomew_maxwell wrote:
Rather take my chances and not put the vaccine in my body.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9051427/Surgeon-General-Jerome-Adams-says-people-need-wear-masks-vaccine.html
Cool story Bart.
Mike Pence says get onboard the Trump vaccine train.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55362697Harambe:
Really? You attack the website's credibility but not the data. You attack a study, but don't cite any examples of defects other than a comparison vis-a-vis HCQ, which given the clear efficacy of HCQ in early stages (see, I cite actual studies), would make IVM appear weaker.
Did you apply the same "critical thinking" (tongue firmly in cheek) to the Pfizer vaccine which used another vaccine as its control? You don't "like" various sources for IVM, but "like" Pfizer, a company fined billions of dollars for misdeeds, and which led the trial of its mRNA vaccine.
If that is your level of debate, quit while you are behind. Instead of weak opinions, provide sources of objective data. And apply the same criteria to all, including the vaccine being beta-tested on humans.
You seem to back a vaccine for which there has been no peer review of its initial study and for which 8 people out of 22,000 actually had the disease (though some or all could have been false positives since the study did not specify how they knew who was positive).
If I offered up IVM as a solution with eight people having had some poorly defined benefit, you would rightly laugh me out of the room. IVM is taken by millions of people in billions of doses every year. There are over 40 studies showing positive results versus none showing negative results (unless Trashcan can back his unsubstantiated claim to the contrary). You have 1 trial for a vaccine. You've got a weak hand, mister.
So, apply the same criteria for all therapies/vaccines and use data to back up your claims.
Ivermectin >> vaccine wrote:
Harambe:
Really? You attack the website's credibility but not the data. You attack a study, but don't cite any examples of defects other than a comparison vis-a-vis HCQ, which given the clear efficacy of HCQ in early stages (see, I cite actual studies), would make IVM appear weaker.
Did you apply the same "critical thinking" (tongue firmly in cheek) to the Pfizer vaccine which used another vaccine as its control? You don't "like" various sources for IVM, but "like" Pfizer, a company fined billions of dollars for misdeeds, and which led the trial of its mRNA vaccine.
If that is your level of debate, quit while you are behind. Instead of weak opinions, provide sources of objective data. And apply the same criteria to all, including the vaccine being beta-tested on humans.
You seem to back a vaccine for which there has been no peer review of its initial study and for which 8 people out of 22,000 actually had the disease (though some or all could have been false positives since the study did not specify how they knew who was positive).
If I offered up IVM as a solution with eight people having had some poorly defined benefit, you would rightly laugh me out of the room. IVM is taken by millions of people in billions of doses every year. There are over 40 studies showing positive results versus none showing negative results (unless Trashcan can back his unsubstantiated claim to the contrary). You have 1 trial for a vaccine. You've got a weak hand, mister.
So, apply the same criteria for all therapies/vaccines and use data to back up your claims.
I definitely attacked the data. The lump in all sorts of RCTs that really meaningful (don't measure against standard of care). There are negative studies where they fish out alternative endpoints and only report those.
See here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3714649^This doesn't seem to be included even thought it reports a complete miss of primary endpoint (had to go fishing for subgroups to find a signal).
Nearly all the positive studies state the need for additional large scale trials. They are being run.
We will know the answer. Until then, it is irresponsible to go around claiming it's a miracle drug.
The phase 3 study for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was published in NJEM. There has been peer review. More than 8 people got the disease across both arms. I have no clue what you're talking about?
The vaccine trials (Moderna and Pfizer) were based on symptomatic cases confirmed with tests. This is in the literature.
So yes, thank you for highlighting the differences:
1) Vaccine trial used large, randomized trials against the standard of care (in this case placebo).
2) Vaccine trials reported a single primary endpoint
If you are still convinced by HCQ you are of course going to be convinced by a few small, poorly run studies.
A general rule is that lots of bad studies bundled together doesn't suddenly make a good one. Garbage in, garbage out.
It's telling that you somehow think a 50k person top-of-the-line clinical trial is worse than several 10-100 person trails using different controls, dosing, end points, etc.
If you are a believer in evidence based medicine you should be 100% on board with the vaccine and skeptical but optimistic for IVM.
Again, dogma seems to rule.