Is Ivermectin an existential threat?

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@Jezcoe

Well… it seems to be an existential threat to inmates who were apparently part of an experiment without their informed consent.

“An Arkansas doctor under investigation for prescribing an anti-parasite drug called ivermectin to jail detainees with COVID-19, even though federal health officials specifically warn against it, has said that those patients took the drug willingly. But several inmates at the Washington County jail say that is not the case — that they were given the pills with no indication of what they really were.”

I wonder why not all inmates are claiming this? I don’t think they’re being treated differently so why is it not unanimous? Let me think…do I take a doctor’s word or the word of “several” inmates but not all?

Maybe they are saying it because it is true.

[Smyrna]

@Jezcoe

Maybe they are saying it because it is true.

Maybe…but why not all, if it is true?

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@Jezcoe

Maybe they are saying it because it is true.

Maybe…but why not all, if it is true?

Maybe because it didn’t wreck everyone’s intestinal tract.

This is pretty wild… there is no argument that the inmates were given Ivermectin… no one denies that that happened… the problem is that they were given it without informed consent.

You see why that is a problem… right?

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@Smyrna

@Jezcoe

Maybe they are saying it because it is true.

Maybe…but why not all, if it is true?

Maybe because it didn’t wreck everyone’s intestinal tract.

This is pretty wild… there is no argument that the inmates were given Ivermectin… no one denies that that happened… the problem is that they were given it without informed consent.

You see why that is a problem… right?

Sure, if it’s true.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Maybe they are saying it because it is true.

You believe a criminal over a doctor?

[Smyrna]

@Jezcoe

the problem is that they were given it without informed consent.

That’s what I don’t fully believe.

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@Jezcoe

the problem is that they were given it without informed consent.

That’s what I don’t fully believe.

What makes it so hard to believe that a doctor that would prescribe Ivermectin against the CDC and FDA guidelines would provide informed consent?

There is also this story.

Arkansas doctor who prescribed ivermectin to jail detainees for COVID now...

Madison informed committee members and the jail officials that a county employee, who has opted to stay anonymous to the public, told her that he had been sent to the jail’s clinic to get tested for COVID-19. When the person tested negative, they were given a $76 prescription for ivermectin. He was concerned about the prescription and asked his primary care physician about it, and the the physician told him to “throw that in the trash,” Madison said. While this individual “had the good fortune to have a physician that he could go to and ask for a second opinion,” Madison said at the meeting, “our inmates do not have that choice.”

Plus the Dr. was open about prescribing Ivermectin.

Karas Health Care, Dr. Karas’ practice, has been touting ivermectin for months. On July 16, the practice posted on Facebook, “if anybody you know test positive send them or [sic] way and we’ll get them started on doxy, singular, ivermectin, vitamin d, vitamin c and zinc.”

So what is so wild in thinking that there was no informed consent given to inmates… people who as we have seen here… experiences are questioned and do not matter.

[Smyrna]

but misinformation and unsubstantiated claims touting the drug have spread widely on social media.

This is a doctor who is using this drug to treat COVID so it isn’t like he’s misinformed by misinformation. Ivermectin is being used around the world to fight this virus and it’s having a positive impact on reducing the number of deaths. Here’s the conclusion from medical doctors and PHDs from their trials.

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines (nih.gov)

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

but misinformation and unsubstantiated claims touting the drug have spread widely on social media.

This is a doctor who is using this drug to treat COVID so it isn’t like he’s misinformed by misinformation. Ivermectin is being used around the world to fight this virus and it’s having a positive impact on reducing the number of deaths. Here’s the conclusion from medical doctors and PHDs from their trials.

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines (nih.gov)

There is a major problem with that study and this is getting into problems with laymen relying on preprint studies during a pandemic.

One of the largest studies in that meta analysis which was the Egyptian study by Elgazzar has been retracted because it was probably fraudulent.

Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical...

The problem with early meta analysis of small studies is that a large study in that analysis can skew the whole thing. Turns out that there was a large study that has since been withdrawn because of fraud so that meta analysis looks like it is garbage and they have to go back to the drawing board.

[zantax]

Plenty of evidence of its effectiveness in India.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

Plenty of evidence of its effectiveness in India.

Why is the evidence lacking in South America where Ivermectin use is so widespread that they cannot find a control group?

[Smyrna]

The study you posted was done last November and headed up by one doctor. This was done this year, with multiple doctors ( Andrew Bryant, MSc,1,* Theresa A. Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD,2 Therese Dowswell, PhD,2 Edmund J. Fordham, PhD,2 Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS,3 Sarah R. Hill, PhD,1 and Tony C. Tham, MD, FRCP4) and the conclusions posted.

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

The study you posted was done last November and headed up by one doctor. This was done this year, with multiple doctors ( Andrew Bryant, MSc,1,* Theresa A. Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD,2 Therese Dowswell, PhD,2 Edmund J. Fordham, PhD,2 Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS,3 Sarah R. Hill, PhD,1 and Tony C. Tham, MD, FRCP4) and the conclusions posted.

It’s a meta analysis.

They aren’t doing tests but instead collating and analyzing several other studies.

One of the largest studies in that group which showed the greatest effect was fraudulent.

The data set that they were using was fouled.

The meta analysis did not survive peer review without finding the flaws in it.

It isn’t a good study.

[TommyLucchese]

Lol do you know what caliber of doctors end up working in jails and prisons?

[Smyrna]

@Jezcoe

It isn’t a good study.

Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence).

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

Plenty of evidence of its effectiveness in India.

Why is the evidence lacking in South America where Ivermectin use is so widespread that they cannot find a control group?

It’s not lacking, see table 1 and table 2.

from Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 - PMC

Further data supporting a role of ivermectin in decreasing transmission rates can be found from South American countries where, in retrospect, large “natural experiments” seem to have occurred. For instance, beginning as early as May, various regional health ministries and governmental authorities within Peru, Brazil, and Paraguay initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns to their citizen populations.48 In one such example from Brazil, the cities of Itajai, Macapa, and Natal distributed massive amounts of ivermectin doses to their city’s population, where in the case of Natal, 1 million doses were distributed. The distribution campaign of Itajai began in mid-July, in Natal they began on June 30th, and in Macapa, the capital city of Amapa and others nearby, they incorporated ivermectin into their treatment protocols in late May after they were particularly hard hit in April. The data in Table ​Table11 were obtained from the official Brazilian government site and the national press consortium and show large decreases in case counts in the 3 cities soon after distribution began compared with their neighboring cities without such campaigns.

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@Jezcoe

It isn’t a good study.

Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence).

Right… and one of the largest studies that showed the greatest effect was fraudulent.

That large and fraudulent study skewed the results of the meta analysis into falsehood.

I am uncertain as to why this is hard to understand.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

It’s a meta analysis.

The GOLD STANDARD!!!

[Smyrna]

@Jezcoe

Right… and one of the largest studies that showed the greatest effect was fraudulent.

That large and fraudulent study skewed the results of the meta analysis into falsehood.

I am uncertain as to why this is hard to understand.

…of 15. So you choose to ignore the other 14?

K.

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@Jezcoe

Right… and one of the largest studies that showed the greatest effect was fraudulent.

That large and fraudulent study skewed the results of the meta analysis into falsehood.

I am uncertain as to why this is hard to understand.

…of 15. So you choose to ignore the other 14?

K.

The other 14 were smaller and showed a moderate effect.

The fraudulent one was large and showed a great effect.

When there are small studies anchored by a large study… that one study can skew the results wildly.

This meta analysis relied on a large fraudulent study to show the great effect in it instead of a low to moderate one.

That particular meta analysis does not show that Ivermectin works well with treating Covid.