Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was it "sold out" or was it "unavailable". There is a difference.
CVS and Walgreens both keep it in stock. They wanted me to go 25 miles to another CVS location to pick it up. I was pretty sick the first couple days of covid and wasn't driving that far to get it.
Unfortunately, the UMN "COVID-OUT" trial is only targeted at 1350 participants, I believe.
So we'll ignore the results even if it says Ivermectin is super effective, right?
If their data is from Omicron, whatever effect they will find will not be statistically significant.
That doesn’t mean we ignore it. It’s another study with data. We can plug it into a meta-analysis provided we adjust the meta-analysis for Omicron only.
But this is besides the point. Who needs medicine for a virus that is about as dangerous as the common cold?
There was a study of all the studies on the effectiveness of Ivermectin. Unsurprisingly their conclusion was that the studies showing ivermectin was effective in treating covid 19 were flawed or falsified.
Among the previous supporters of using ivermectin, Prof Andrew Hill, from the University of Liverpool, wrote an influential positive review of ivermectin, originally saying the world should "get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [the drug]". Now he says the studies don't stand up to scrutiny.
"[The researchers] formed a group looking deeper into ivermectin studies after biomedical student Jack Lawrence spotted problems with an influential study from Egypt. Among other issues, it contained patients who turned out to have died before the trial started. It has now been retracted by the journal that published it.
The group of independent scientists examined virtually every randomised controlled trial (RCT) on ivermectin and Covid - in theory the highest quality evidence - including all the key studies regularly cited by the drug's promoters.
Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".
Major problems included:
The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people
Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random
Numbers unlikely to occur naturally
Percentages calculated incorrectly
Local health bodies unaware of the studies"
Btw, this came out recently, and it's the largest study done on Ivermectin to date. From the University of Miami too.
This is an observational cohort study, where they went back and looked into all the records of COVID+ patients recorded in Florida, and took ones who were supplied just Remdesivir or Ivermectin.
They went through the records of 1.7 million patients, and 41,000 patients who were treated with just Ivermectin (1,000) and just Remdesivir (40,000). They matched them by age, gender, comorbidities, etc everything under the sun, to eliminate any bias among cohorts.
Quote:
After using propensity score matching and adjusting for potential confounders, ivermectin was associated with reduced mortality vs remdesivir (OR 0.308, 95% CI (0.198,0.479)),Risk Difference -5.224%, CI (-7.079%,-3.369%), p <0.0001.
What does this mean? OR of 0.308 means patients who took Ivermectin were 70% less likely to die than those who took Remdesivir.
What does p<0.0001 mean?
It means less than one in ten thousand chances these results were gotten by chance.
You folks who insist on Ivermectin not working are basically flat earthers. I don't blame you. Fauci stood up and told you the earth was flat and you believed him.
...Also very low p-values like p<0.0001 will be rarely encountered, because it would mean that the trial was overpowered and should have had a smaller sample size. It would seem appropriate, therefore, to require investigators to explain such results and to consider rejecting the research involved...
Just like doctors who correctly say vaccines and autism are linked, those who say ivermectin works for covid are threatened with loss of their licenses among other issues.
...Also very low p-values like p<0.0001 will be rarely encountered, because it would mean that the trial was overpowered and should have had a smaller sample size. It would seem appropriate, therefore, to require investigators to explain such results and to consider rejecting the research involved...
Plus, I know you're familiar with the inherent issues with retrospective studies.
What they are talking about is RCTs. Such a p value would be hard to get for a RCT because it would be huge (therefore incredibly expensive, no one will fund a over powered RCT, even the smaller ones cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a day).
Observational studies are different, p values like this are easy to come about because they query records. In this case, there were a lot of records.
Your first link is to a single study contradicting the general findings of dozens of others, which isn't surprising since it included only high-risk patients and they waited for said patients were already symptomatic before administering the IVM.
Your second link talks about a single study that was withdrawn, and when it was, the results of the meta-analysis were still basically the same.
I can't believe you actually had the chutzpah to post the third link citing Andrew Hill even after he was caught on video admitting he altered the conclusion of his Ivermectin after UNITAID -- largely bankrolled by the vaccine fetishists at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation -- threatened to withhold its £30,000,000 grant from his employer (University of Liverpool) -- a blood-money betrayal of science, medicine, and academia that probably cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
And the fourth link talks about the possibility -- not the conclusion, but the possibility -- of publication bias. And while that's always a concern, you'd think there would be a much more rigorous body of work debunking Ivermectin efficacy considering the all-out propaganda war that's been launched against it.
So summary, I'll be charitable and go with the conclusion that you don't really have your head around the full subject matter at bar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
