Interesting Death Rate Report

[Busher]

"Note to self"

Self - Everybody is arrogantly Stupid and Violator is not.  Got it. . . . .

I am not sure how all of us missed that. . . .  .lol

Thanks TyFoo...

[DmonSlyr]

"Note to self"

Self - Everybody is arrogantly Stupid and Violator is not.  Got it. . . . .

I am not sure how all of us missed that. . . .  .lol

I never said I wasn't either lol  . Just go watch it and let me know if you aren't a little less arrogant after it?

[Brooke]

Not for nothing, but the single somewhat adequate N number (5600+)

What is adequate is determined how solidly a study is constructed and its resulting p value.

It would be nice if every study showed positive outcome.  But for most therapies tested in the real world, some studies will be positive and some not.  Then you look at the whole body of evidence.  Not just a few in vitro studies.  Not just one no-effect in vivo study.  Not when you have a bunch of positive-effect in vivo studies as well.

In the list of references, there are about 17 studies summarized in the tables.  Of those 17, it looks like one showed no effect, and the rest showed positive effect.  There are also other non-trial-type data that indicate positive effect.

The no-effect study was a compilation of data on several potential therapies.  For Ivermectin, it wasn't N = 5600+.  It was 561 people who got Ivermectin or Ivermectin plus Azithromax.  That study was a retrospective observational study, not randomized, controlled, etc.  We don't know if the people receiving treatment were similar to those not getting treatment.  We don't even know how much Ivermectin they got or when it was administered.  Also, the death rates were about 20% within 7-9 days for all groups.  That is surprisingly high and fast, so I wonder about the composition of patients.  I wouldn't dismiss this study, but it is not among the strongest of the studies listed.

At any rate, you first focused on the few in vitro studies to the exclusion of the more numerous and much-more-important in vivo studies.  Now you are focusing on one study that shows no effect to the exclusion of 16 (plus other data) that show positive effect.

The data -- taken as a whole -- supports concluding that Ivermectin is effective.

If more data comes in that changes that conclusion, then it changes that conclusion -- but so far, looks like Ivermectin is useful.

If I or my family got Covid, I would want Ivermectin.  Especially since, even if it didn't work, the risk of taking it is so low. The mainstream alternative is no treatment until you are in bad enough shape to need hospitalization.  You might have a different view for you and your family, which is OK for you.

[MORAY37]

What is adequate is determined how solidly a study is constructed and its resulting p value.

It would be nice if every study showed positive outcome.  But for most therapies tested in the real world, some studies will be positive and some not.  Then you look at the whole body of evidence.  Not just a few in vitro studies.  Not just one no-effect in vivo study.  Not when you have a bunch of positive-effect in vivo studies as well.

In the list of references, there are about 17 studies summarized in the tables.  Of those 17, it looks like one showed no effect, and the rest showed positive effect.  There are also other non-trial-type data that indicate positive effect.

The no-effect study was a compilation of data on several potential therapies.  For Ivermectin, it wasn't N = 5600+.  It was 561 people who got Ivermectin or Ivermectin plus Azithromax.  That study was a retrospective observational study, not randomized, controlled, etc.  We don't know if the people receiving treatment were similar to those not getting treatment.  We don't even know how much Ivermectin they got or when it was administered.  Also, the death rates were about 20% within 7-9 days for all groups.  That is surprisingly high and fast, so I wonder about the composition of patients.  I wouldn't dismiss this study, but it is not among the strongest of the studies listed.

At any rate, you first focused on the few in vitro studies to the exclusion of the more numerous and much-more-important in vivo studies.  Now you are focusing on one study that shows no effect to the exclusion of 16 (plus other data) that show positive effect.

The data -- taken as a whole -- supports concluding that Ivermectin is effective.

If more data comes in that changes that conclusion, then it changes that conclusion -- but so far, looks like Ivermectin is useful.

If I or my family got Covid, I would want Ivermectin.  Especially since, even if it didn't work, the risk of taking it is so low. The mainstream alternative is no treatment until you are in bad enough shape to need hospitalization.  You might have a different view for you and your family, which is OK for you.

No, I focused on what, as a scientist, is pretty much the most important part of the study.... the number of replications.  Of the rest of the studies you contained in that, ALL of them don't even equal the one 5600+ replicants that showed no plausible positive affect to the disease course.  You, explaining that away, AS A PhD, is very troubling. Checking a study's replications is the number one thing taught in graduate school, when weighting the plausibility of the conclusions claimed.  You can have golden p=values, but if you're making sweeping population wide conclusions from an N=100 study..... you failed at basic science.

Again, it merits some randomized study, due to the in vitro findings.  But, claiming Ivermectin is a miracle drug is plainly irresponsible.

[Brooke]

No, I focused on what, as a scientist, is pretty much the most important part of the study.... the number of replications. 

You can have a large-N experiment that is worthless.  You can have a lower-N experiment that is very solid.  Depends on the full set of details, which includes experimental design and underlying probabilities of the process you are studying.

Again, it merits some randomized study, due to the in vitro findings. 

There are randomized, controlled studies referenced in the document already.  More is better, of course.  In vitro is crap compared to in vivo.

But, claiming Ivermectin is a miracle drug

Here is what I claim:

I think Ivermectin should be widely used.  Right now.

Do you disagree with me on that?

If I or my family got Covid, I would use Ivermectin right then.

Would you?