[LMB] AKICOT:L Comercials

Marc Wilson marc.wilson at gmx.co.uk
Wed Oct 20 10:47:41 BST 2021

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 22:04:24 -0400, Damien Sullivan
<phoenix at mindstalk.net> wrote:

>On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 06:15:43PM +0000, Bujold list wrote:
>> Ongoing Clinical Trials Will Decide Whether (or Not) Ivermectin Is Safe, Effective for COVID-19
>> https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/scicheck-ongoing-clinical-trials-will-decide-whether-or-not-ivermectin-is-safe-effective-for-covid-19/
>> It may or may not work. Time will tell. Apparently some people here are already in possession of these results?
>There have already been many such studies.  Quoting your own article:
>"the National Institutes of Health counts over 70 studies evaluating the
>safety and effectiveness of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 in
>humans, the FDA says “currently available data do not show ivermectin is
>effective against COVID-19,” "
>"According to the preliminary results presented by Mills, the study
>found no indication of benefit on the use of ivermectin — nor with
>hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir, or metformin. The ivermectin
>arm had 1,500 patients: 677 of them received a daily dose of the
>medication, and 678 others were given a placebo, for three days."
>"According to the results presented, 86 patients in the ivermectin group
>required extended emergency room observation or hospitalization versus
>95 in the placebo group. Both the differences in relative risk and
>mortality relative risk between the two groups were not statistically
>significant. These results have not been peer-reviewed yet."
>So yeah, apparently two more trials are being done. But they're not being
>done in a vaccum.  Ivermectin has already failed to show benefit in
>multiple studies and real-world use; the smart money is that the new
>trials will simply confirm that even more.
>"One of the papers that increased the hope for ivermectin, which
>included 400 people with symptoms of COVID-19, was retracted on July 14,
>after concerns about plagiarism and inconsistencies in the data.
>According to Nature, before being withdrawn, the paper was viewed more
>than 150,000 times, cited more than 30 times and included in several
>meta-analyses, creating a ripple effect of misinformation."
>The case for ivermectin is built on sand.

The African anecdotes may have *some* very vague basis; given that the
medication was tried in poor countries where more (and perhaps nastier)
parasites are endemic, it's not beyond plausibility that killing of (at
least some of) someone's parasite load might give the immune system a
bit more bandwidth to fight of another infection.

But it strikes me as (at best) a second-order effect.
The floor is the largest shelf in your house.

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list