9 ms·

It's entirely unconstructive to make comments like yours without sharing your sources. As I said above, there is this toxic attitude exhibited by many where the

It's entirely unconstructive to make comments like yours without sharing your sources. As I said above, there is this toxic attitude exhibited by many where there is an assumption that those who disagree with you are idiots and you need not waste time explaining your arguments. This gets us nowhere. For what it's worth, take a look at the results discussed here [1] which show that those refusing vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 are both the least and most academically qualified. Not everyone on that "side" is an idiot, and you may not have read everything they have (and nor might they have read everything you have). [1] https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-education-group-of-all-phds/ https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-educati...

scotty79 5y ago
It seems that those with masters degree are just the most humble and aware of their shortcomings. Both more and less educated seem to think they "know better" than the specialists in their field, possibly but not necessarily for different reasons. Btw one source might be this: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-11/ivermectin-no-effect-covid https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-11/ivermectin... Here's another: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 Also a there seem to be no high quality large studies that show positive effect of ivermectin on covid: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/ All of those are literally one google search away so I don't think providing them inline is all that necessary. People interested in them can find them with no trouble and others won't read them even if provided. And I'm not calling anyone an idiot.
- sleavey 5y ago
  Thanks for the links, I will take a proper look later. However, I have to repeat my point about scientific convergence because your links, in contrast to what you said earlier, demonstrates it is yet to happen. Popp et al. acknowledges the presence of the meta-analysis I linked above, and that it has a different conclusion to itself. It acknowledges that the approaches were broadly different, and that the criteria for inclusion of various studies in the meta-analyses were different. Future papers are going to have to continue to refine and agree on biases in individual studies that rule them in or out of subsequent meta-analysis. Or, to put it more succinctly, science has not yet converged. Yet, COVID is killing people, so we can't wait for science to converge before doing something about it. It therefore makes most sense to use educated guesses and conduct evidence based medicine with appropriate weighing of risks versus rewards. What ivermectin has going for it is that it is an extremely safe drug with a long history of use as an antiviral. Repurposing existing drugs is also far easier (and quicker) to get approval for than new vaccines. Even if the papers you linked are eventually proved right, and ivermectin is not beneficial, the evidence from ivermectin's use over 40 years suggests that it does very little harm - deaths caused by ivermectin intervention are essentially in the noise. What's more, it's out of patent so we're not paying $20-40 a pop like we are with the vaccines. It's got so much going for it that any level headed risk versus reward calculation should include it in the arsenal to fight against COVID.
- benf76 5y ago
  Hey when you say there have been no high quality large studies perhaps you are unaware of the 63 studies, 42 of which were peer reviewed and 31 were randomized controlled trials. Please look at ivmmeta.com and let me know what you think of these are high quality large studies and if not why.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    I'm just merely repeating the conclusion of linked meta-analysis that found 14 RCT studies regarding ivermectin. As for the studies you linked to. I am no expert at doing meta-analysis but it seems to me that many RCT studies listed there are really small, at least some were done in very remote places. Most of them have single digit number of participants with adverse outcomes. I'm not sure but I think none of them showed no effect which is a bit odd. I suspect that many studies of similar size and quality done globally were exucluded from this list. There might be some general bias against publishing studies that show no effect too. All the RCTs on this page mentioned together have the same order of magnitude of number of participants as the most recent study that showed no effect that I mentioned. I think one large study done carefully is many times more convincing than tens of very small studies done in highly loaded political climate. I see that authors of this website have reservations about Together study I linked to: https://c19ivermectin.com/togetherivm.html https://c19ivermectin.com/togetherivm.html This might indicate that studies on this site are to some degree cherry-picked by the authors so it's not so much meta-analysis of all RCT studies of Ivermectin, but rather meta-analysis of the Ivermectin studies someone likes.
    - benf76 5y ago
      Scotty here is the thing I can’t get over maybe you can help. IVM has ‘won the Nobel prize’. It is effective agains ~100 parasites and viruses and all kinds of baddies that plague humans (and as we have learned horses! And other mammals). I didn’t know this until the pandemic but I’ve been giving it to my dog for 10 years! So it is VERY EFFECTIVE. That is a true statement. Is it effective against CV? I mean why wouldn’t we try it? Why would we assume something that works for so much not be? Why default to not try it? You get what I’m saying? It seems like when the world is melting down we should be trying everything. If there are 60+ studies showing it works why not do another 100? Or a thousand? It’s non toxic, incredibly cheap, easily produced .. it makes NO SENSE to me and stinks of malintent to silence and suppress it. Does that make sense?

scotty79 5y ago

It seems that those with masters degree are just the most humble and aware of their shortcomings. Both more and less educated seem to think they "know better" than the specialists in their field, possibly but not necessarily for different reasons. Btw one source might be this: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-11/ivermectin-no-effect-covid https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-11/ivermectin... Here's another: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 Also a there seem to be no high quality large studies that show positive effect of ivermectin on covid: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/ All of those are literally one google search away so I don't think providing them inline is all that necessary. People interested in them can find them with no trouble and others won't read them even if provided. And I'm not calling anyone an idiot.

sleavey 5y ago
Thanks for the links, I will take a proper look later. However, I have to repeat my point about scientific convergence because your links, in contrast to what you said earlier, demonstrates it is yet to happen. Popp et al. acknowledges the presence of the meta-analysis I linked above, and that it has a different conclusion to itself. It acknowledges that the approaches were broadly different, and that the criteria for inclusion of various studies in the meta-analyses were different. Future papers are going to have to continue to refine and agree on biases in individual studies that rule them in or out of subsequent meta-analysis. Or, to put it more succinctly, science has not yet converged. Yet, COVID is killing people, so we can't wait for science to converge before doing something about it. It therefore makes most sense to use educated guesses and conduct evidence based medicine with appropriate weighing of risks versus rewards. What ivermectin has going for it is that it is an extremely safe drug with a long history of use as an antiviral. Repurposing existing drugs is also far easier (and quicker) to get approval for than new vaccines. Even if the papers you linked are eventually proved right, and ivermectin is not beneficial, the evidence from ivermectin's use over 40 years suggests that it does very little harm - deaths caused by ivermectin intervention are essentially in the noise. What's more, it's out of patent so we're not paying $20-40 a pop like we are with the vaccines. It's got so much going for it that any level headed risk versus reward calculation should include it in the arsenal to fight against COVID.
benf76 5y ago
Hey when you say there have been no high quality large studies perhaps you are unaware of the 63 studies, 42 of which were peer reviewed and 31 were randomized controlled trials. Please look at ivmmeta.com and let me know what you think of these are high quality large studies and if not why.
- scotty79 5y ago
  I'm just merely repeating the conclusion of linked meta-analysis that found 14 RCT studies regarding ivermectin. As for the studies you linked to. I am no expert at doing meta-analysis but it seems to me that many RCT studies listed there are really small, at least some were done in very remote places. Most of them have single digit number of participants with adverse outcomes. I'm not sure but I think none of them showed no effect which is a bit odd. I suspect that many studies of similar size and quality done globally were exucluded from this list. There might be some general bias against publishing studies that show no effect too. All the RCTs on this page mentioned together have the same order of magnitude of number of participants as the most recent study that showed no effect that I mentioned. I think one large study done carefully is many times more convincing than tens of very small studies done in highly loaded political climate. I see that authors of this website have reservations about Together study I linked to: https://c19ivermectin.com/togetherivm.html https://c19ivermectin.com/togetherivm.html This might indicate that studies on this site are to some degree cherry-picked by the authors so it's not so much meta-analysis of all RCT studies of Ivermectin, but rather meta-analysis of the Ivermectin studies someone likes.
  - benf76 5y ago
    Scotty here is the thing I can’t get over maybe you can help. IVM has ‘won the Nobel prize’. It is effective agains ~100 parasites and viruses and all kinds of baddies that plague humans (and as we have learned horses! And other mammals). I didn’t know this until the pandemic but I’ve been giving it to my dog for 10 years! So it is VERY EFFECTIVE. That is a true statement. Is it effective against CV? I mean why wouldn’t we try it? Why would we assume something that works for so much not be? Why default to not try it? You get what I’m saying? It seems like when the world is melting down we should be trying everything. If there are 60+ studies showing it works why not do another 100? Or a thousand? It’s non toxic, incredibly cheap, easily produced .. it makes NO SENSE to me and stinks of malintent to silence and suppress it. Does that make sense?