3083 replies to this topic

[Advocatus Diaboli]

.

 

Re: post #2940

 

I didn't check to see if the Elgazzar study is included here. Or, if it was once included and is now removed. However, considering the number of other Ivermectin studies available, there may not be much of an effect on what conclusions are drawn concerning Ivermectin, whether the Elgazzar study is either in or out of the Ivermectin-related portion of the database--regardless of the study's status as formerly being considered as "one of the the (sic) largest and most promising showing the drug may help Covid patients".

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 20 July 2021 - 07:51 AM.

[DanCG]

.

 

Re: post #2940

 

I didn't check to see if the Elgazzar study is included here. Or, if it was once included and is now removed. However, considering the number of other Ivermectin studies available, there may not be much of an effect on what conclusions are drawn concerning Ivermectin, whether the Elgazzar study is either in or out of the Ivermectin-related portion of the database--regardless of the study's status as formerly being considered as "one of the the (sic) largest and most promising showing the drug may help Covid patients".

Following the links we find that, excluding the Elgazzar data from the cited metaanalyses by Bryant and Hill does not change the conclusions of these reviews, with the findings still clearly favouring ivermectin for both prevention and treatment.

 

Also, the meta-analysis cited by the Guardian as showing that “ivermectin is not a viable option for treating covid” has been been severely criticized for failing to correct errors that had been pointed out while the article was in preprint, methodological fallacies, and generally failing to meet “standards of accuracy and integrity that any learned journal should demand.”

[Hip]

According to the Guardian article on this faked ivermectin study, without this study, the case for ivermectin almost disappears:

“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.
 
“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”
 
The ResearchGate page for the lead author Professor Emeritus Ahmed Elgazzar of Benha University Egypt is found here. 

 
 
In a joint statement by the two groups promoting ivermectin as a COVID treatment, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), they say:

CoContrary to the voices quoted in the article, there is no scientific basis to state that the removal of one study from meta-analyses would ‘reverse results.’ Worryingly, this article’s insinuation is reported as if it is fact.

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 20 July 2021 - 01:26 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

DarkHorse Podcast with Tess Lawrie & Bret Weinstein goes over the guardian story in detail here: 

 

https://odysee.com/@...:f/TessLawrie:0

 

Dr Lawrie actually removes the Elgazzar study from the meta live on the show, & demonstrates the difference.  

 

Bottom line...  I does change the overall result, but does not damage the overall meta results significantly.  

 

The guardian story is first up, so you don't have to listen to the entire 1:15:12 podcast, though the entire show is great.  

[Dorian Grey]

Looks like https://ivmmeta.com/

 

has pulled  Elgazzar too, with little change to their overall meta.  

 

"Covid Analysis, Jul 16, 2021, Version 100 — removed Elgazzar, updated Ravikirti (V1 Nov 26, 2020)"

Edited by Dorian Grey, 20 July 2021 - 02:39 PM.

[Malf]

When I heard the COVID-19 coronavirus came from the same family of virus that causes the common cold, I thought of zinc as a potential therapy.  I've had excellent results from the old Zicam zinc nasal swabs (now banned due to anosmia issues), & more recently zinc acetate lozenges, both of which knocked out my head colds in record time.  In researching this, I see rinovirus & coronavirus are two different bugs???  

 

https://emedicine.me...227820-overview

 

From the chart on the above linked page, it appears coronavirus are primarily associated with Winter colds, & rinovirus with Summer colds?  If this is true, I've had good results with zinc knocking out my Winter colds, which seem to be predominantly coronavirus.  The key seems to be getting high enough zinc concentrations where the bug actually lives in the nose, throat etc, & apparently zinc acetate lozenges are absorbed locally through the mucosa by keeping the lozenge in the mouth for extended periods, raising tissue levels of zinc high enough to kill the virus, or at least inhibit replication.  Systemic zinc supplements (absorbed in the gut) fail to raise zinc levels high enough locally in infected tissues to be effective, so the lozenge, and particularly the right type of lozenge (zinc aceatate) are vital.  Here's Chris Masterjohn describing how this works.  

 

 

The reports of COVID-19 spreading to the GI tract, with some patients reporting GI symptoms as their first sign of the disease are also intriguing.  If zinc is effective in high enough localized concentration, might extended bathing of the GI tract with multiple zinc lozenges over the first few days of infection possibly be helpful at inhibiting proliferation of COVID-19 in the GI tract?  

 

I always keep a bottle of the Life Extension "Enhanced Zinc Lozenges" (with the essential zinc acetate form Chris mentions) on hand to take at the first sign of a cold.  Don't know if this might work with COVID-19, particularly if it manifests initially in the lungs, but it probably couldn't hurt, & any effect at all on this bug in the throat or GI tract might tip the scales towards survival.  It is imperative to start treatment as early as possible, so you'd need to have this on hand day 1.  If the COVID-19 bug never shows up at your door, you can still use this to knock out your next head cold.  I've been very impressed with the results I've gotten with this therapy.  

 

What do you think about the potential for this angle?  

 

Good looking out Dorian, I have some natural factors 15 mg zinc tablets but scared to take them because some people said it gave them cramps, but the life extension lozenges look more tolerable will they give you good absorption of zinc?

 

I noticed Amazon stopped selling my Go To NAC supps, I was taking it long before Covid because it helped loosen the mucus in my chest when I would get bad colds, I used to get horrible thick build up and had to hock it  all the time, but NAC did the trick for me.
 

[Gal220]

Mad scientist approach - UV light

https://gab.com/bona...615854640176705

 

https://www.npr.org/...hat-a-good-idea

[Gal220]

Medical malpractice... -  LINK

 

"Database mining of Californian Covid patients showing:

 

• the medication shift in non hospitalized patients between March and November (going from bad to worse)

• the total, absurd disconnect from the treatment leads in the published Covid studies"

 

Are they just in the tank for the vax?

 

[Gal220]

Curcumin and Green Tea(EGCG) best taken together - LINK

 

"Formulation of herbal tea bags was developed containing green tea extract using curcumin as a permeation enhancer. Curcumin enhanced permeation of green tea extract, mainly epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), which is the most important active constituent of green tea extract. Formulation fulfilled dose requirement and regulated serum lipid levels significantly compared to pure green tea extract (without curcumin), with no side effects. Curcumin, thus can be an effective permeation enhancer to increase bioavailability of EGCG present in green tea, effectively reducing the hyperlipidemia. Ease and convenience of tea bags make it suitable for even bed-ridden patient"

Edited by Gal220, 22 July 2021 - 04:10 PM.

[Gal220]

Swedish health agency vs US health agency - LINK

 

In finding Swedish child seroprevalence yesterday, I spent some time on their Public Health site and—WOW—what a breath of fresh air. They actually tell …the truth… instead of fomenting panic. Let’s take a look at some highlights & compare to USA

[Gal220]

Ohio study linked from covid19crusher used the following treatment

The core supplementation formulations included zinc; zinc ionophores (quina plant bark extract and quercetin); vitamins C, D3 and E; and l-lysine. Sourcing for these components was, except as noted below, from a range of well-known manufacturers of name brand supplements.

 

For disease prophylaxis

One dose daily of the full core formulation regimen, containing:

• 10 drops of Quina^™ (on average; the quina-bark extract may be titrated, as tolerated by some subjects, starting at 1 drop then building up to 8-16 drops daily, but which latter may be taken as two 4-8 drop half-doses twice daily);

• 400 mg quercetin, 1000 mg vitamin C; 1000 IU (25 μg) vitamin D3; 400 IU Vitamin E; 25 mg zinc; and 500 mg l-lysine.

Some of it does seem amateurish, vitamin C would work much better at three 500mg doses, full spectrum E,  and at least 2000IU of D(4000IU better with k2).  They did have good results at least.

Edited by Gal220, 23 July 2021 - 05:13 AM.

[Qowpel]

Ohio study linked from covid19crusher used the following treatment

The core supplementation formulations included zinc; zinc ionophores (quina plant bark extract and quercetin); vitamins C, D3 and E; and l-lysine. Sourcing for these components was, except as noted below, from a range of well-known manufacturers of name brand supplements.

 

For disease prophylaxis

One dose daily of the full core formulation regimen, containing:

• 10 drops of Quina^™ (on average; the quina-bark extract may be titrated, as tolerated by some subjects, starting at 1 drop then building up to 8-16 drops daily, but which latter may be taken as two 4-8 drop half-doses twice daily);

• 400 mg quercetin, 1000 mg vitamin C; 1000 IU (25 μg) vitamin D3; 400 IU Vitamin E; 25 mg zinc; and 500 mg l-lysine.

Some of it does seem amateurish, vitamin C would work much better at three 500mg doses, full spectrum E,  and at least 2000IU of D(4000IU better with k2).  They did have good results at least.

It seems this is massively important regarding the lysine. SInce they listed lysine, it must mean that covid 19 INDEED uses Arginine to replicate, as other viruses do. If this is true, then the Arginine restriction mimetic, L lysine, could proe incredibly useful. And in my opinion if such is true, a gram a couple times a day would be great.

[Gal220]

It seems this is massively important regarding the lysine. SInce they listed lysine, it must mean that covid 19 INDEED uses Arginine to replicate, as other viruses do. If this is true, then the Arginine restriction mimetic, L lysine, could proe incredibly useful. And in my opinion if such is true, a gram a couple times a day would be great.

They list the reasons for including the various components which was helpful. This was not the reason for they listed for lysine, but doesnt mean its not true either.

 

 l-lysine supplementation reduces infection rates is thought to be via its raising of zinc serum levels

 

EGCG and Quercetin both help zinc(creating ionophores), but also have other interactions which are helpful, no doubt the same for lysine   It would have been nice if the study(and others) listed other potential components like curcumin and why they ultimately decided on this concoction vs something else.  EGCG and curcumin both show high binding affinity to covid for example vs a range of other extracts.

[Zwergpirat]

Is Ivermectin for Covid-19 based on fraudulent research?

 

https://gidmk.medium...ch-5cc079278602

[Qowpel]

They list the reasons for including the various components which was helpful. This was not the reason for they listed for lysine, but doesnt mean its not true either.

 

 

 

 

EGCG and Quercetin both help zinc(creating ionophores), but also have other interactions which are helpful, no doubt the same for lysine   It would have been nice if the study(and others) listed other potential components like curcumin and why they ultimately decided on this concoction vs something else.  EGCG and curcumin both show high binding affinity to covid for example vs a range of other extracts.

 

Interesting I thought curcumin was only good for anti inflammation against covid, and that egcg was only good as a zinc ionophore. Does this insinutae there are indeed other effects of these two?

 

In addition, do you think egcg, curcumin, quercetin, and zinc would be an effective propylactic against covid

[Gal220]

Interesting I thought curcumin was only good for anti inflammation against covid, and that egcg was only good as a zinc ionophore. Does this insinutae there are indeed other effects of these two?

 

In addition, do you think egcg, curcumin, quercetin, and zinc would be an effective propylactic against covid

 

EGCG and curcumin should be taken together, both show a high binding affinity to the virus.

 

Ive been doing EGCG/Curcumin in the morning, Quercetin/Bromelain(sold together, helps Quercetin) in the afternoon for prevention, along with a normal vitamin regimen(should includes vitamin Bs, C, D, zinc, and selenium).  

[Gal220]

Is Ivermectin for Covid-19 based on fraudulent research?

 

https://gidmk.medium...ch-5cc079278602

 

The only real fraud is it hasnt been widely used so we know how much it helps.  There was more than enough evidence to start using it, most of it covered on Trialsitenews

[Advocatus Diaboli]

re: post 2954 by Zwergpirat

 

"Elgazzar" is clearly mentioned in the article link that you provide, Zwergpirat. On this thread, the Elgazzar paper is talked about in posts 2940-2945. If you read the posts you will find that evidence is provided that shows removing the faked Elgazzar paper from COVID-19 analyses has little effect on the results showing that Ivermectin works.

[geo12the]

Is Ivermectin for Covid-19 based on fraudulent research?

 

https://gidmk.medium...ch-5cc079278602

 

One of the big Ivermectin studies from Egypt has been discredited. Here is my personal opinion: Much of the research I see showing benefits to Ivermectin (and HCQ) is from places like Bangladesh and Iran and Pakistan. Just because a study is from those places does not mean it's not valid. I am a researcher (Genetics type research). Over the years I have come to realize that scientists can sometimes get overly excited about preliminary results from experiments that lack controls. And in places like Bangladesh there aren't the guardrails you might have in US universities that reign in that tendency.  I remember going to a conference once and seeing a presentation from a researcher in Asia, I think it was China, where this person was going on and on about this magic rice they found with 100% increased yield. I knew the researcher believed it, but I also knew there was little chance it was real and I have not heard a peep about that magic rice since. I feel a little bit of the same way when I read those studies purporting to show amazing benefits from HCQ or Ivermectin. And if you go to the site that compiles all of these results that people here always cite like it's gospel, you basically have a compilation of questionable science which to me is not convincing. Based on what I have read HCQ is a dead horse. Ivermectin I still have some hope for but it will take more studies for me to be convinced. At the end of the day I think it's important to have a critical eye. Many of the folks here have a very critical eye when it comes to mainstream science and vaccines  and a completely uncritical eye when it comes to things like HCQ and studies from Iran. There is a disconnect there they don't see.  

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Call me old-fashioned, geo12the, but I'd like to see some citations that back up your following claims made in post #2959:

 

1--"Much of the research I see showing benefits to Ivermectin (and HCQ) is from places like Bangladesh and Iran and Pakistan."--Cite a study showing the breakdown of Ivermectin, and/or HCQ, research by country, and that also indicates your claim is true. Or, is your claim anecdotal, and therefore worthless?

 

2--"Over the years I have come to realize that scientists can sometimes get overly excited about preliminary results from experiments that lack controls.And in places like Bangladesh there aren't the guardrails you might have in US universities that reign in that tendency."--Cite a study comparing the use of controls as well as "guardrails" in the US v Bangladesh.  Or, is this just what you think, rather than being examples of fact?

 

3--"And if you go to the site that compiles all of these results that people here always cite like it's gospel, you basically have a compilation of questionable science which to me is not convincing."--Give a few examples of why particular studies from "the site" are "questionable" or "not convincing". "The site" has removed "Elgazzar"--a fact which tends to indicate that it considers the possible existence of questionable studies, and will take appropriate action. Anecdotal?  "to me is not convincing". It'd make your case stronger if you provided cogent, and citable, reasoning for your claims.

 

4--"Based on what I have read HCQ is a dead horse."--Cite a meta-analysis. A "dead horse" would imply that the majority of the studies that you've read will back up your claim.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 27 July 2021 - 03:52 PM.

[geo12the]

 

Call me old-fashioned, geo12the, but I'd like to see some citations that back up your following claims made in post #2959:

 

1--"Much of the research I see showing benefits to Ivermectin (and HCQ) is from places like Bangladesh and Iran and Pakistan."--Cite a study showing the breakdown of Ivermectin, and/or HCQ, research by country, and that also indicates your claim is true. Or, is your claim anecdotal, and therefore worthless?

 

2--"Over the years I have come to realize that scientists can sometimes get overly excited about preliminary results from experiments that lack controls.And in places like Bangladesh there aren't the guardrails you might have in US universities that reign in that tendency."--Cite a study comparing the use of controls as well as "guardrails" in the US v Bangladesh.  Or, is this just what you think, rather than being examples of fact?

 

3--"And if you go to the site that compiles all of these results that people here always cite like it's gospel, you basically have a compilation of questionable science which to me is not convincing."--Give a few examples of why particular studies from "the site" are "questionable" or "not convincing". "The site" has removed "Elgazzar"--a fact which tends to indicate that it considers the possible existence of questionable studies, and will take appropriate action. Anecdotal?  "to me is not convincing". It'd make your case stronger if you provided cogent, and citable, reasoning for your claims.

 

4--"Based on what I have read HCQ is a dead horse."--Cite a meta-analysis. A "dead horse" would imply that the majority of the studies that you've read will back up your claim.

 

 

Point #1- I did a cursory look on Pubmed for recent papers on Ivermectin and COVID. The top results were from Indonesia and Brazil. Not that there is anything wrong with that, But... I have no idea if there is a study that breaks this down. But if you look at these studies there is an over-representation of places like Quatar and Brazil etc.  

 

Point #2- This is just my personal view based on observations during my career as a scientist.  Take it for what it's worth, I could be completely wrong.

 

Point #3 -The point I was trying to make is that I am skeptical of these meta-analysis sites. The latest Ivermectin meta-analysis papers I found (from Indonesia and Brazil)  were negative. To be honest I was surprised and disappointed reading them. Believe it or not I have hope that Ivermectin works.  

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/34181716/

https://pubmed.ncbi.....gov/34237554/ 

 

 

Point #4:

J Clin Med

2021 Jun 13;10(12):2609.

 doi: 10.3390/jcm10122609.

Impact of Prophylactic Hydroxychloroquine on People at High Risk of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Adrian V Hernandez 1 2, John Ingemi 3rd 1, Michael Sherman 1, Vinay Pasupuleti 3, Joshuan J Barboza 2, Alejandro Piscoya 2, Yuani M Roman 1 4, Charles M White 1 4

Affiliations

• 1Health Outcomes, Policy and Evidence Synthesis (HOPES) Group, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT 06269, USA.
• 2Unidad de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Meta-Análisis (URSIGET), Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola (USIL), Lima 15024, Peru.
• 3Scientific Communications, Cello Health, Yardley, PA 19067, USA.
• 4Department of Research Administration, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT 06102, USA.

• PMID: 34199214
•  
• PMCID: PMC8231762
•  
• DOI: 10.3390/jcm10122609

Free PMC article

Abstract

There are no proven prophylactic interventions for COVID-19. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 were searched in several engines until 8 December 2020. Primary outcomes included RT-PCR positivity, COVID-19 infections (positive RT-PCR or compatible COVID-19 symptoms), and all-cause mortality. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 5579) and one cohort (n = 106) were included. Placebo was the comparator in four RCTs, and usual care in one RCT. Compared to the controls, five RCTs showed that hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis did not reduce RT-PCR positivity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.16), COVID-19 infection (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78-1.22), or all-cause mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.27-1.99). There were no differences of effects by pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis. Prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of diarrhea, abdominal pain, or vomiting (RR 4.56, 95% CI 1.58-13.19). There were no effects of hydroxychloroquine on other secondary outcomes. Quality of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 infections, defined either as RT-PCR positivity or as a composite of RT-PCR positivity or compatible symptoms. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, or adverse events.

 

 

At the end of the day I don't have a horse in this game. I just want to know what works. This stuff has become unnecessarily politicized so that if you are one side you must be for Ivermectin and against vaccines. That politicization is misguided and foolish. We should all just seek the truth. That is always my goal in life. These days the loudest voices come from the extremes- political and otherwise.  Those extremes don't care about truth, only about being right.  

Edited by geo12the, 27 July 2021 - 05:13 PM.

[DanCG]

One of the big Ivermectin studies from Egypt has been discredited. Here is my personal opinion: Much of the research I see showing benefits to Ivermectin (and HCQ) is from places like Bangladesh and Iran and Pakistan. Just because a study is from those places does not mean it's not valid. I am a researcher (Genetics type research). Over the years I have come to realize that scientists can sometimes get overly excited about preliminary results from experiments that lack controls. And in places like Bangladesh there aren't the guardrails you might have in US universities that reign in that tendency.  I remember going to a conference once and seeing a presentation from a researcher in Asia, I think it was China, where this person was going on and on about this magic rice they found with 100% increased yield. I knew the researcher believed it, but I also knew there was little chance it was real and I have not heard a peep about that magic rice since. I feel a little bit of the same way when I read those studies purporting to show amazing benefits from HCQ or Ivermectin. And if you go to the site that compiles all of these results that people here always cite like it's gospel, you basically have a compilation of questionable science which to me is not convincing. Based on what I have read HCQ is a dead horse. Ivermectin I still have some hope for but it will take more studies for me to be convinced. At the end of the day I think it's important to have a critical eye. Many of the folks here have a very critical eye when it comes to mainstream science and vaccines  and a completely uncritical eye when it comes to things like HCQ and studies from Iran. There is a disconnect there they don't see.  

 

In my own research career, I too have observed the phenomenon of researchers falling in love with their own hypothesis so that they readily accept the evidence in favor of it and work hard to find reasons to dismiss the evidence against it. So I see what you are saying. One scientist popping off about something that seems incredible on its face (as in your anecdote) raises a red flag. The situation with ivermectin does not fit that pattern. One would have to postulate that hundreds of doctors from around the world are deluding themselves, all with the same delusion. One would also have to postulate that experts in meta-analysis, such as Dr. Lawrie, of the BIRD group, are unable to discern weak from strong data. These people had no dog in the hunt going in, they just looked at the available evidence and followed where it leads. Note that the BIRD meta-analysis concluded a “moderate level of certainty” not the best possible “high level of certainty”. That looks like honest analysis to me.

Yes, the individual studies tend to be small and “underpowered”. They tend to be conducted by working physicians without support of a large scientific staff or large grants from drug companies or governments. But the trend of the results taken in aggregate is very clear. Until something better comes along, a moderate level of certainty is something that should be embraced if we are serious about saving lives.

[Dorian Grey]

As long as we're talking trials, a quick refresher on the single, solitary trial that bought remdesivir its EUA and eventual FULL APPROVAL might be fun.  

 

The initial trial was to include 400 patients, and naturally they were looking for a reduction in mortality.  Apparently, early on, it looked like there was a small reduction in mortality, but not enough to reach statistical significance.  How do you turn a statistically insignificant reduction in mortality into a statistically significant one?  SuperSize the trial!  

 

https://www.fiercebi...rimary-endpoint

 

Gilead supersizes remdesivir trials, changes primary endpoint

 

Unfortunately, the minor reduction in mortality seen early on never reached statistical significance, no matter how much they expanded the trial.  What to do?  Change the primary end point (on the fly!).  

 

Don't have evidence for this, but Del Bigtree said when they expanded the trial, they actually ran out of placebo.  Apparently remdesivir is not crystal clear like saline, so they had a placebo sauce mixed up to look like remdesivir and loaded into identically shaped bottles, with both remdesivir and placebo masked and labeled with numbers.  Though the trial is always called a "double blind & randomized placebo controlled trial" at some point this ceased to be.  They couldn't get more of the placebo sauce made up quickly enough when they expanded the trial, & doctors & researchers now knew who was getting remdesivir, & who wasn't. 

 

Here's where things get interesting.  The trial was suddenly truncated!  Fauci explained that they had suddenly seen an improvement in recovery demonstrated by shorter hospital stay, and for ethical reasons the trial was halted, as it was determined it would no longer be ethical to continue the placebo arm of the trial once the drug was found to be helpful.  

 

Interestingly, time to hospital discharge can vary quite a bit from week to week, which would give a strong motive to truncate the trial when hospital discharge for the remdesivir arm was statistically positive.  If you ran the trial to completion, there was a chance the hospital discharge numbers might not have reached statistical significance on the day the trial was to officially have ended.  Since the trial was no longer blinded (after they ran out of placebo), anyone could have easily seen the perfect point to truncate and score a WIN!

 

Fauci got his remdesivir EUA, and came out looking like a saint for halting the trial to save the placebo arm with his magic potion.  

 

The WHO announced the results of their own RCTs on October 15th, stating: "The evidence suggested no important effect on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes."  

 

Just a week later (Oct 22), the FDA granted full approval to remdesivir, which remains the only COVID specific drug in the CDC guidelines.  I found this rather peculiar, as the WHO opinion was based on 4 different RCTs, involving many more patients than the NIH/NIAID trial.

 

--------------------------

 

Amazing how little evidence it takes to get a money making pharmaceutical an EUA, and even full approval, and just how difficult it is to even allow front line doctors working in the field to even prescribe existing generics off-label.  

 

We live in interesting times!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 27 July 2021 - 09:16 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

.

 

re: post #2961:

 

Point 1--What were the criteria you used for your "cursory look" for "recent papers on Ivermectin and COVID" on PubMed? I used the PubMed search feature to search on the string "recent papers on Ivermectin and COVID". Of the four results, one was authored from Brazil, none from Indonesia.

 

Point 2--The first part of point 2 (see "2--", post #2960) is opinion, because you have now so stated that it is. However, the second part is clearly a claim of fact, for which you have provided no evidence.

 

Point 3--You have failed to give a reason for your skepticism about the meta-analysis sites that have been linked in previous posts, other than citing papers which are reports of meta-analyses that contradict the overall conclusions of those sites. Those sites include studies both for, and against, the efficacy of the agent being reported on. And, even with the negative studies, the overall conclusions are positive for both HCQ and Ivermectin as being effective treatments for COVID-19 (depending on stage) .

 

Point 4--You have cited three meta-analysis studies (Hernandez, Zein, Roman). Hernandez included 5 RCTs and one cohort study in his meta-analysis. Zein analyzed 9 RCTs . Roman analyzed 10 RCTs.The site you disdain as being a "compilation of questionable science" collect, and analyze, a far greater number of studies--for example 764 studies at the site as of this writing (the studies including HCQ, Ivermectic, and other agents).

 

This site, dealing with HCQ includes 265 studies (as of this writing), proleptically addresses concerns such as why were non-RCT studies included into the meta-analyses:

 

"Evidence supports incorporating non-RCT studies. [Concato] find that well-designed observational studies do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the effects of treatment compared to RCTs. [Anglemyer] summarized reviews comparing RCTs to observational studies and found little evidence for significant differences in effect estimates. [Lee] shows that only 14% of the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America were based on RCTs. Limitations in an RCT can easily outweigh the benefits, for example excessive dosages, excessive treatment delays, or Internet survey bias could easily have a greater effect on results. Ethical issues may prevent running RCTs for known effective treatments. For more on the problems with RCTs see [Deaton, Nichol]."

 

The site goes on to assert:

 

"If treatment was not effective, the observed effects would be randomly distributed (or more likely to be negative if treatment is harmful). We can compute the probability that the observed percentage of positive results (or higher) could occur due to chance with an ineffective treatment (the probability of >= k heads in n coin tosses, or the one-sided sign test / binomial test). Analysis of publication bias is important and adjustments may be needed if there is a bias toward publishing positive results. For HCQ, we find evidence of a bias toward publishing negative results."

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 27 July 2021 - 09:03 PM.

[geo12the]

 

 

 

 

This site, dealing with HCQ includes 265 studies (as of this writing), proleptically addresses concerns such as why were non-RCT studies included into the meta-analyses:

 

"Evidence supports incorporating non-RCT studies. [Concato] find that well-designed observational studies do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the effects of treatment compared to RCTs. [Anglemyer] summarized reviews comparing RCTs to observational studies and found little evidence for significant differences in effect estimates. [Lee] shows that only 14% of the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America were based on RCTs. Limitations in an RCT can easily outweigh the benefits, for example excessive dosages, excessive treatment delays, or Internet survey bias could easily have a greater effect on results. Ethical issues may prevent running RCTs for known effective treatments. For more on the problems with RCTs see [Deaton, Nichol]."

 

The site goes on to assert:

 

"If treatment was not effective, the observed effects would be randomly distributed (or more likely to be negative if treatment is harmful). We can compute the probability that the observed percentage of positive results (or higher) could occur due to chance with an ineffective treatment (the probability of >= k heads in n coin tosses, or the one-sided sign test / binomial test). Analysis of publication bias is important and adjustments may be needed if there is a bias toward publishing positive results. For HCQ, we find evidence of a bias toward publishing negative results."

 

 

Regarding https://hcqmeta.com/#fig_fpd, Yes they include 265 studies. It's tempting to think "265 studies, must be something there" But if that 265 includes a high % of bias unsound studies, the conclusions will not be real. That is my point.  I honestly have trouble making sense of their claims of "effects would be randomly distributed"  and "we find evidence of a bias toward publishing negative results," their bias against RTCs and the statistics they use. I feel like their verbiage is intentionally obtuse and difficult to understand to mask the weaknesses in their analysis. Just my personal opinion. 

Edited by geo12the, 27 July 2021 - 10:20 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

In the podcast I linked to above: https://odysee.com/@...:f/TessLawrie:0

 

DarkHorse Podcast with Tess Lawrie & Bret Weinstein

 

Tess Lawrie identified as an MD/PhD, External Analyst for the WHO; specializing in Systemic Review & Evidence to Decision Analysis

 

In minute 41-43 of the podcast Tess & Bret discuss the amount of evidence there was regarding IVM, & she said: "I've never seen such a huge body of evidence being ignored"  

 

(but then what does she know...  She's just an MD/PhD external analyst for the WHO, who specializes in evidence to decision data analysis)  

[Advocatus Diaboli]

.

 

 

Re: post #2965:

 

From the web site:

 

'The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 265 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 247 trillion (p = 0.000000000000004).' 

 

I checked their calculation, and it is correct, given their assumptions. They implicitly assume that the probabilties for positive and negative results are equal at 0.5 (a binary choice, no "inconclusive"). So, 0.5 probability for each outcome (+ or -) is the correct one to use. In that regard, their parenthetical "(the probability of >= k heads in n coin tosses, or the one-sided sign test / binomial test)", holds.

 

A second, unstated, assumption is that each study is given equal weight in the analysis regardless of study size or other factors. That is, they implicitly assume all studies are considered to be valid, until proven otherwise, regardless of having  positive or negative findings. And, that the studies are equally weighted--whether large or small, be they researched in Bangladesh, the USA, or wherever. The assumption is reasonable because it probably would counter possible weighting bias.

 

It would be simple enough for you to construct your own weighted decision matrix, in a spreadsheet, with factors that you might think are most applicable to an analysis that estimates study reliability and validity--without having to actually read all of the studies. You could play around with varying the weights in conformance with the criteria that you think are the most pertinent. For example, you might want to weight all Bangladesh studies as a 0 and all USA studies as a 10 (0-10 scale, for example). Other variables could include recency, where you might want to give a higher weight to more recent studies where it is likely that previous studies are mentioned and critiqued, or are offered as substantiation. You get the idea. But, be aware that you may be challenegd on your weightings if you make your decision matrix public.

 

You wrote:

 

"I feel like their verbiage is intentionally obtuse and difficult to understand to mask the weaknesses in their analysis.". 

 

Give the forum an example of what you apparently find to be Derrida-type obtuse obfuscation. Perhaps someone here can help clarify the meaning of the intentionally obtuse verbiage for you.

 

You wrote:

 

"It's tempting to think "265 studies, must be something there" But if that 265 includes a high % of bias unsound studies, the conclusions will not be real.:

 

You keep bringing up that point, but you still have failed to produce either reasoning or evidence that suggests, and substantiates, that your characterization of some of the studies used in meta-analysis sites as being "biased unsound studies", is true. It's almost as if your rejection of the site(s) findings is rooted in cognitive bias, rather than on an examination of the facts. 

[Gal220]

Regarding https://hcqmeta.com/#fig_fpd, Yes they include 265 studies. It's tempting to think "265 studies, must be something there" But if that 265 includes a high % of bias unsound studies, the conclusions will not be real. That is my point.  I honestly have trouble making sense of their claims of "effects would be randomly distributed"  and "we find evidence of a bias toward publishing negative results," their bias against RTCs and the statistics they use. I feel like their verbiage is intentionally obtuse and difficult to understand to mask the weaknesses in their analysis. Just my personal opinion. 

 

I wonder myself which component of these multi-sequence protocols is doing the heavy lifting, maybe all of them are essential.  McCullough points out many conditions like heart disease and cancer are rarely solved with one medication, that it was irrational to think IVM or HCQ by itself would be the answer.

 

At 1:01:35 of this VIDEO, a question is asked about treatment numbers here in the US using IVM or HCQ, 120,000 of which 40% were high risk.

Edited by Gal220, 28 July 2021 - 04:03 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

I can't help but think the fanatical resistance to outpatient therapeutics is all down to politics & the vaccination program.  The EUA for the vaccines wouldn't even fly if any outpatient therapeutic was even mildly successful.  The politics?  I've actually been loosing my religion over this.  To think anyone might actually endorse a prohibition on doctors prescribing cheap generics, available over the counter in many countries just boggles my mind.  

 

Dr Peter McCullough touched on the cruelty in his remarkably passionate May 19th interview.  

 

Imagine being an elderly man, living alone, with a few comorbidities, getting the call your COVID test is positive.  Having your GP tell you (over the phone no less!): "NO, there is nothing...  Don't come in, there is no prescription.  Just call 911 if you get to a point where you can't breath anymore.  

 

Then, you're ambulanced off to hospital & placed in isolation.  No visitors allowed, and even the staff only stop by once or twice per shift.  Dying alone, with never even a glimmer of hope offered anywhere along the way by 21st Century American Medicine.  

 

I'm sure those who've endorsed this protocol never fully understood just how cruel their actions were, and underestimated just how often this passion play would play out.  I'm sure they thought Big Pharma would come up with a Warp-Speed therapeutic that would rescue us all.  Why fool around with existing cheap generics?  

 

Time will tell if we really can vaccinate our way out of this mess, or if a new outpatient drug will show up to save the day.  Looks like mask mandates are back for now...  The initial vaccine's effectiveness is waning, and boosters are on the horizon.  We're essentially almost back to square one.  

 

My faith in humanity is ebbing.  God forgive us, for we know not what we've done.  

[geo12the]

 

 

Imagine being an elderly man, living alone, with a few comorbidities, getting the call your COVID test is positive.  Having your GP tell you (over the phone no less!): "NO, there is nothing...  Don't come in, there is no prescription.  Just call 911 if you get to a point where you can't breath anymore.  

 

 

 

What about the elderly man, who, for political reasons, decides to not get vaccinated and comes down with COVID and ends up a ventilator?  That could have been prevented if he had just gotten the vaccine. That is the reality that is playing out now. 

 

And once people are sick they are not told "NO, there is nothing...  Don't come in, there is no prescription". My brother is an MD and he works his ass off for his patients. There ARE therapeutics like steroids that help those who are sick. Steroids are inexpensive and have been shown to work. They are not as sexy to some as HCQ but they work.

 

I just don't think any outpatient therapeutics are as effective as vaccines. That is not a political opinion, it's reality.

Edited by geo12the, 28 July 2021 - 04:49 AM.