447 replies to this topic

[gamesguru]

Hi, the quoted study seems to be lacking in thoroughness and transparency. Within pooled studies, high degrees of heterogeneity and other methodological flaws make it hard to be sure of anything.

 

They claim to be able to exclude many confounding variables, but do not explain or quantify these claims of the variables not influencing the analysis.  It is important in academic research to provide data and model simulations to back up claims.  "Several potential confounding factors, including... population densities across the 25 states, were considered but did not appear to have significantly influenced these outcomes."

 

It also makes speculative & associative claims based on excess death analysis. Analysis based on excess deaths is notoriously fraught with selection bias, confounding variables, difficulty in accurate measurement, and viable alternate explanations (both in the case of excess and reduced mortality). Given the fact that this is limited to one country—Peru—the breadth of analysis (and the weight it carries) seems fairly limited.

 

 

I employ the readers here to pay closer attention to detail and purloin their ideas from a wider body of research, including mainstream research. It doesn't seem to receive much attention here.  I think it's important to consider all perspectives, and to maintain an open mind and willingness to analyze new information—rather than ignoring anything which sits disagreeably amongst one's existing belief systems.

 

There are plenty of studies showing the opposite about Ivermectin and bringing light to the issue. Consider this review from April 2023—which succinctly summarizes a homogenous body of studies and points to more promising or safer OTC treatment options.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

gamesguru in post #331 wrote:

 

"Consider this review from April 2023—which succinctly summarizes a homogenous body of studies and points to more promising or safer OTC treatment options."

 

The link contains an article written by two PharmD candidates (i.e. students) and presents four "reviews" for a "body of studies", among other material. 

 

I have excerpted from the students' article:

 

 

Literature Review: IVERCOR-COVID19 Study:

 

"...done in Corrientes, Argentina to determine whether ivermectin would be effective in preventing the hospitalization of patients with early onset COVID-19."

 

Literature Review: I-TECH Study:

 

"This study looked to determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing the progression to severe COVID-19 in high-risk populations with mild-to-moderate COVID-19."

 

Literature Review: RIVET-COV Study:

 

"This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ivermectin elixir in the treatment of COVID-19."

 

Literature Review: COVER Study:

 

"The High-Dose Ivermectin for Early Treatment of COVID-19 (COVER) study was a randomized, investigator-initiated, double-blind, phase 2, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial conducted with adult patients that were diagnosed with COVID-19 across four sites in Italy."

 

 

It's quite clear, from looking at the purposes (above) of the "reviewed" studies, that gamesguru:

 

1.) didn't comprehend the student authors' "reviews", or 

 

2.) has a fundamental misunderstanding of what "homogenous" (or homogeneous) means ("...which succinctly summarizes a homogenous body of studies...").

 

 

My guess is that both 1.) and 2.) apply.

 

If the students had "reviewed" 10 separate studies similar to I-TECH, for example, then those studies might be considered to have constituted a homogeneous body of studies. The students' "reviews" in their article were a heterogeneous mix.

 

The "Do You Want to be a Published Author? Submit your Article(s) Today!" near the end of gamesguru's linked page, speaks volumes about Rho Chi Post. 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 17 August 2023 - 05:08 AM.

[gamesguru]

Hi, I agree with your analysis.  And appreciate your spelling correction!  I don't always have spell check enabled.

 

However, I think you should apply an equal analysis to the sources claiming a positive effect of Ivermectin.  Those reviews are also heterogeneous in their data, which is generally frowned upon analytically & statistically.

 

The study Mind posted links to "Cureus" and has a similar button to submit research, which is open to any students or the public.

 

In summary, your own sources are guilty of the same limitations which you highlight of mine.  I see no convincing or measurable effect size persuading me to lean one way or the other.  Balancing the insignificant effect size against the potential negatives of prolonged HCQ / IVM usage, I cannot presently advise in their favor.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Either spelling is correct. My parenthetical aside pointed this out by using the word "or" in post #332: ' "homogenous" (or homogeneous) means'

 

The authors for the study Mind links to in his post #330 are:

 

Juan J. Chamie

I'm not a medical professional.

 

Jennifer A. Hibberd, Sc.D.

Dentistry • Pediatric Specialist

 

David E. Scheim, Ph.D.

Infectious Disease

 

The Wikipedia page about "Cureus" states that

 

" A study conducted by librarians of the Emory University found that Cureus was in the top 2 of institutional publications deemed predatory or untrustworthy^[7]."

 

and

 

"Cureus was also criticized for having allowed to publish articles elsewhere retracted because of methodological reasons and under scrutiny for “possible violations of medical ethics and human rights”^[8]."

 

Those facts alone should raise red flags. Although the authors may have raised good points and their presented facts may have been accurate, I think it was a mistake for Mind to have cited the study.

 

You write in post #331:

 

"There are plenty of studies showing the opposite about Ivermectin and bringing light to the issue.".

 

Please provide an example. It probably would be a good idea for the example to be as recent as you can find.

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 23 August 2023 - 06:46 PM.

[Mind]

Here is something really unsettling: Some pharmacists continue to refuse to fill prescriptions for Ivermectin. (They should be fired).

 

Why? Who knows. Are they just being spiteful? Do they have a political axe to grind? Whatever the reason, they should not be a pharmacist.

 

Ivermectin is an extremely safe, Nobel prize-winning medication that has been used billions of times since it was discovered. In this discussion you will find dozens of studies that show it is beneficial in treating COVID. Even the one trial that did not show statistical significance DID show a signal of benefit.

 

The FDA recently lost a legal decision regarding Ivermectin - regarding their stupid "horse medication" tweet. They are being sued, because it is NOT their job to give medical advice.

 

It is highly disturbing that the FDA and some pharmacists are interfering with the doctor patient relationship.

[Hip]

Here is something really unsettling: Some pharmacists continue to refuse to fill prescriptions for Ivermectin. (They should be fired).

 

Not another article by Tyler Durden the schizophrenic! He probably hallucinates half the stuff he writes.

[Daniel Cooper]

Not another article by Tyler Durden the schizophrenic! He probably hallucinates half the stuff he writes.

 

He's got an MD going on record saying that she's seen pharmacists that refuse to fill ivermectin prescriptions on his side.

 

You've got invective and ad hominem attacks against the author on yours.

 

Guess which one is the more intellectually solid argument?

[Hip]

He's got an MD going on record saying that she's seen pharmacists that refuse to fill ivermectin prescriptions on his side.

 

You've got invective and ad hominem attacks against the author on yours.

 

Guess which one is the more intellectually solid argument?

 

Is that a real MD, or just a doctor that Tyler Durden the pro-Russian schizophrenic hallucinated?

 

The Russians have a history of using psychotic or mentally unstable people as pawns in the propaganda war against the West. Russians go for so-called "useful idiots" as propaganda stooges, and partially insane people. 

[Daniel Cooper]

Is that a real MD, or just a doctor that Tyler Durden the pro-Russian schizophrenic hallucinated?

 

The Russians have a history of using psychotic or mentally unstable people as pawns in the propaganda war against the West. Russians go for so-called "useful idiots" as propaganda stooges, and partially insane people. 

 

Oh Hip ..... 

 

Just the sort of solid thought out highbrow argument we've come to expect from you. 

[Hip]

Oh Hip ..... 

 

Just the sort of solid thought out highbrow argument we've come to expect from you. 

 

You think I am making this up? I am not: United State intelligence has accused Tyler Durden's website Zero Hedge of amplifying Kremlin propaganda.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Whenever the sinister (think Latin) side of the Overton window doesn't like something, the typical refrain is "Russia, Russia, Russia". A now trite palilogy

[Advocatus Diaboli]

51 former intelligence officials concluded that information in the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.  So much for US Intelligence. So, take your link with a grain of salt, Hip. (grain, as used here, means the size of the known universe)

[joesixpack]

US Intelligence, is an Oxymoron. And they lie, obviously.

 

What a joke.

[Hip]

51 former intelligence officials concluded that information in the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.  So much for US Intelligence. So, take your link with a grain of salt, Hip. (grain, as used here, means the size of the known universe)

 

You seem to be implying that if the opinions of the intelligence services (or in this case retired intelligence officials with presumably no access to privy information) turn out to be wrong in once case, then you throw out all their opinions. Obviously this is a non sequitur.

 

In fact, it is the duty of intelligence services to be suspicious. That's what they are paid for. Often those suspicions may turn out to be nothing; other times the suspicions might lead to uncovering a major plot by state enemies or terrorists. 

 

Is Tyler Durden getting paychecks from the Kremlin? Well, you can never be sure.  

 

 

You seem to be implying that if the opinions of the intelligence services

[Daniel Cooper]

 

Is Tyler Durden getting paychecks from the Kremlin? Well, you can never be sure.  

 

 

 

Is Hip getting paychecks from Pfizer Pharmaceuticals? Well, you can never be sure.

 

See how that sort of accusation works on pretty much anyone?

[Mind]

The Mayo Clinic now says that HCQ can be used for COVID. (I suspect similar things will be said about ivermectin soon)

 

Quite the reversal from 2 years ago when HCQ was vilified. It was "dangerous" according to the "experts". Fake studies were published in the Lancet and elsewhere making it seem that it was useless or harmful when treating COVID.

 

None of it was true. Who will pay for this "misinformation"? Any criminal charges? Will anybody be fired?

[Daniel Cooper]

Fascinating. 

 

If it becomes well established (maybe it already is) that HCQ is effective, or at least as effective as other antivirals such as Paxlovid, will anyone be called to account for this? They would after all potentially be responsible for the loss of untold lives by suppressing an effective treatment.

 

The thing that was always apparent to me, is that HCQ wasn't being given a fair shake from the beginning for a handful of reasons:

 

1.) It's long off patent and generic, therefore nobody was going to make much money off it. No matter how much the FDA protests, it's more in the business of protecting pharmaceutical company profits than it is in looking out for the interests of patients. I really don't believe this is even arguable any more. 

 

2.) There was always a massive political component to the HCQ debate - The dreaded Trump had talked about and promoted HCQ therefore HCQ must be useless at best and likely harmful. Never mind that Trump hadn't pulled HCQ out of thin air. The idea that HCQ might be useful against these bat coronaviruses had come from studies by the Chinese after the first SARS epidemic when they were looking for cheap off the shelf treatments should SARS or another SARS like virus arise again. And of course, Trump hadn't read the relevant paper, he'd heard it from doctors that were advising him.

 

Nearly half the country couldn't stand Trump, and that percentage was vastly more skewed in the Washington bureaucracy and establishment. It was simply unacceptable to them that anything that Trump said could possibly be valid, and therefore by all appearances they went into studying HCQ with a substantial built in bias.

 

People like to think of scientists as disinterested people that are merely doggedly looking for the facts. Seekers of the truth. But they are human just like the rest of us and at least as susceptible to bias as any one of us. Arguably more so since so much science gets funded through the government and it's very hard to take a public stance that runs counter to those that sign your paycheck (or your grant checks as the case may be). Not to mention a stance that may get you ostracized by your peers and potentially bring your academic career to a screeching halt. 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 25 September 2023 - 02:50 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The Mayo Clinic now says that HCQ can be used for COVID. (I suspect similar things will be said about ivermectin soon)
 
Quite the reversal from 2 years ago when HCQ was vilified. It was "dangerous" according to the "experts". Fake studies were published in the Lancet and elsewhere making it seem that it was useless or harmful when treating COVID.
 
None of it was true. Who will pay for this "misinformation"? Any criminal charges? Will anybody be fired?

 
Now this is damned strange. When I clicked on your link above earlier today I got this:


 
I just got this off the Wayback Machine from a save earlier today.
 
But, when I click on that link right now, I get this:

 

Curious.

 

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

I'm getting a page not found error on your link, Mind.

 

https://www.mayoclin...on/drg-20064216

[Mind]

I'm getting a page not found error on your link, Mind.

 

https://www.mayoclin...on/drg-20064216

 

The Mayo clinic appears to have taken down the page, some people claim this is due to media attention it garnered. I should have taken a screen shot, but I didn't think the Mayo clinic would succumb to media pressure. If they have clinical evidence about the usefulness of HCQ in treating COVID, they should stick with their original guidance. 

 

Here is a screen shot from yesterday. I visited the page and can confirm this is exactly what it said. Now today it is gone.

[Daniel Cooper]

The Mayo clinic appears to have taken down the page, some people claim this is due to media attention it garnered. I should have taken a screen shot, but I didn't think the Mayo clinic would succumb to media pressure. If they have clinical evidence about the usefulness of HCQ in treating COVID, they should stick with their original guidance. 
 
Here is a screen shot from yesterday. I visited the page and can confirm this is exactly what it said. Now today it is gone.

 

 Also - it is still available on the WayBack Machine: Mayo Clinic - Hydroxychloroquine.  Have a look before before it disappears too  .

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 26 September 2023 - 06:32 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

The Mayo clinic appears to have taken down the page, some people claim this is due to media attention it garnered. I should have taken a screen shot, but I didn't think the Mayo clinic would succumb to media pressure. If they have clinical evidence about the usefulness of HCQ in treating COVID, they should stick with their original guidance. 

 

Here is a screen shot from yesterday. I visited the page and can confirm this is exactly what it said. Now today it is gone.

 

This reminds me of the Henry Ford HCQ trial: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7330574/

 

Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

 

"In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact."

 

The backlash was swift, & brutal, and Henry Ford was beaten down: 

 

https://www.henryfor...-an-open-letter

 

Hydroxychloroquine: An Open Letter to Our Community and Beyond

 

"Unfortunately, the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events. Our goal as scientists has solely been to report validated findings and allow the science to speak for itself, regardless of political considerations. To that end, we have made the heartfelt decision to have no further comment about this outside the medical community – staying focused on our core mission in the interest of our patients, our community, and our commitment to clinical and academic integrity."

[Mind]

This reminds me of the Henry Ford HCQ trial: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7330574/

 

Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

 

"In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact."

 

The backlash was swift, & brutal, and Henry Ford was beaten down: 

 

https://www.henryfor...-an-open-letter

 

Hydroxychloroquine: An Open Letter to Our Community and Beyond

 

"Unfortunately, the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events. Our goal as scientists has solely been to report validated findings and allow the science to speak for itself, regardless of political considerations. To that end, we have made the heartfelt decision to have no further comment about this outside the medical community – staying focused on our core mission in the interest of our patients, our community, and our commitment to clinical and academic integrity."

 

It is amazing how so much scientific/medical data was manipulated during the COVID panic. It is disturbing how political forces are corrupting medical research - with the CDC and FDA leading these political machinations.

[Dorian Grey]

250,000 Courses of Paxlovid Administered Weekly, Pfizer CEO Says

 

https://www.webmd.co...pfizer-ceo-says

 

SHAZAM!  or perhaps I should say KA-CHING!  I guess it's a good thing IVM or HCQ never panned out as outpatient therapeutics. 

 

Poor Pfizer would only be making billions on the vaccines without Paxlovid.  

[Mind]

No surprise here: Yet another study confirms what a lot of doctors found a couple of years ago - HCQ is effective in treating COVID.

 

The hysterical rejection of any alternative treatment during the COVID panic, including extremely safe and effective therapeutics like IVM and HCQ, is one of the worst episodes in US health policy. It should be obvious to everyone by now that innocent lives were sacrificed for political reasons.

[Daniel Cooper]

250,000 Courses of Paxlovid Administered Weekly, Pfizer CEO Says

 

https://www.webmd.co...pfizer-ceo-says

 

SHAZAM!  or perhaps I should say KA-CHING!  I guess it's a good thing IVM or HCQ never panned out as outpatient therapeutics. 

 

Poor Pfizer would only be making billions on the vaccines without Paxlovid.  

 

Or as Jim Cramer would say - Booyah!

[Hip]

The hysterical rejection of any alternative treatment during the COVID panic, including extremely safe and effective therapeutics like IVM and HCQ, is one of the worst episodes in US health policy. It should be obvious to everyone by now that innocent lives were sacrificed for political reasons.

 

The hysterical rejection of conventional treatment during the COVID pandemic by some uneducated quarters of the general public, including extremely safe and effective therapeutics like the COVID vaccines, is one of the worst episodes of US general public thinking. It should be obvious to everyone by now that innocent lives were sacrificed for political reasons advanced by the antivax groups, such as the antivax organisation run by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Edited by Hip, 10 October 2023 - 11:20 PM.

[Hip]

No surprise here: Yet another study confirms what a lot of doctors found a couple of years ago - HCQ is effective in treating COVID.

 

I know many people on these COVID threads are heavily biased and polarised in their thinking, which probably answers my question. But can you explain why you only post positive studies on HCQ, and never post the negative studies? 

 

Is this just due to biased thinking, or is there another reason for your selective, cherry-picking approach? 

 

 

And by the way, the HCQ study you quoted is a a retrospective study, which provide an inferior level of evidence compared to prospective studies, because they have many biases. 

 

You might like to read this article on the limitations and weaknesses of retrospective studies. 

[Dorian Grey]

I know many people on these COVID threads are heavily biased and polarised in their thinking, which probably answers my question. But can you explain why you only post positive studies on HCQ, and never post the negative studies? 

 

Is this just due to biased thinking, or is there another reason for your selective, cherry-picking approach? 

 

 

And by the way, the HCQ study you quoted is a a retrospective study, which provide an inferior level of evidence compared to prospective studies, because they have many biases. 

 

You might like to read this article on the limitations and weaknesses of retrospective studies. 

 

While it is very difficult to show benefit where none exists with an RCT, it is actually quite easy to obscure benefit.  It's all in the design of the study.  

 

HCQ has many obvious indications beside the inhibition of viral replication (zinc ionophore / alkalization of organelles); immune modulation, anti-clotting, and anti-fever to name a few.  What I hope no one could deny is that timing of initiation of treatment is what will make or break any benefit that may be found, as viral replication is literally peaking within days of symptom onset.  

 

Enter Recovery & Solidarity HCQ trials.  Giant, multi-million dollar, multi-center, randomized, placebo controlled and blinded...  Oh and limited to HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS!!!  What the heck?  They waited all through the outpatient viral replication phase of the disease and then trialed a potential antiviral during a raging cytokine storm in critically ill patients?  I'm actually shocked they largely got away with this with the press, but how this passed scientific muster with the scientific community is a puzzlement...  Unless of course the were blinded by Trump Derangement Syndrome.  

 

Delaying treatment isn't the only way to deceive.  There was a large outpatient trial in Brazil that reported no statistically significant benefit in keeping patients out of hospital.  Only problem was, the trial was not risk stratified, and the average age of the patients was 45, with no one at all over 56 years of age.  Now, can anyone guess why there may not have been much difference in hospitalization between the treatment & placebo groups?  

 

The Together Trial was yet another huge outpatient (early treatment) trial that showed no benefit.  On closer observation, you might notice they accepted patients symptomatic for up to 8 days before enrollment.  I recall doctors in the field reporting when patients go critical with clots & hypoxia, it seems to occur right around day 10.  Anyone see a problem with Together Trial?  Why do we think Paxlovid trials were limited to those symptomatic up to 5 days?  Statistical significance is very sensitive to very small tweaks in the methodology.  

 

It's very easy to wave around these huge expensive RCTs and yell GOLD STANDARD!  EVERYTHING ELSE IS TRASH!!!  What even a lot of doctors don't know is, just how easy it is to design a trial to fail.  Disgraceful malfeasance on the part of the researchers, but hey...  For a billion dollars, even I might be persuaded.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 11 October 2023 - 08:04 PM.

[Hip]

While it is very difficult to show benefit where none exists with an RCT, it is actually quite easy to obscure benefit. 

 

In my experience, the opposite is the case: it's all too easy to get a positive result in initial RCT trials, which does not pan out under further scrutiny and more rigorous testing. 

 

I don't think many people here have had any personal experience with these matters; but I've been closely following clinical trials for ME/CFS treatments for 17 years now, ever since I develop ME/CFS from a viral infection 17 years ago.

 

On many occasions during this 17 years, hopes amongst the ME/CFS patient community had been raised, when an initial clinical trial of a new ME/CFS treatment showed benefit for ME/CFS. 

 

When a new treatment is shown in an initial trial to have some benefits, you find that many ME/CFS patients pay for that treatment privately, in the hope of being cured or getting some improvement in their illness. These patients will typically report the results of their private treatment on public ME/CFS forums like Phoenix Rising. 

 

Sadly, in spite of the initial hype from positive studies, you invariably find these novel ME/CFS treatments do not pan out; ultimately they are found not to work, both by ME/CFS patients on forums, and sometimes by larger-scale and better conducted clinical trials of the treatment. 

 

So unlike the many people on these COVID threads who neophytes to this clinical trial business, I am an experienced realist, based on nearly 2 decades of seeing initially hopeful new ME/CFS treatments turn out to be failures.

 

I've actually tried many highly hyped ME/CFS treatments myself, and sadly found they do not help.

 

I would say that it's not until you get personally involved in trying treatments that you begin to develop a realistic perspective about the power of medicine (or lack thereof). All new treatments are heavily hyped, but if like me you have tried many of them, and find they do not work, and you have heard reports from fellow ME/CFS patients that the treatments do not work, then you begin to become immune to the hype, and see things more realistically.

 

 

 

Even outside of gold standard RCT clinical trials, I heard many stories from ME/CFS doctors who run informal trials of their own ME/CFS treatments, and make great claims for the treatments that they personally devised. But again when you look at actual patient reports on ME/CFS forums, you find that the success rates are much lower than these doctors claim. So again from personal experience, and from the reports on ME/CFS forums, I've become aware that many doctors over estimate the efficacy of the treatments they create.

 

In the case of long COVID ME/CFS, we see this same story of over exaggeration occur again with Dr Bruce Patterson, who claimed he had found the cause of LC, and made amazing claims for his long COVID treatment protocol. But if you actually ask patients on long COVID forums whether they had any success with Patterson's protocol, you find a few patients report some small benefits (but nowhere near a cure), and other patients found no benefits at all. 

Edited by Hip, 11 October 2023 - 11:02 PM.