| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Update on ivermectin for covid-19 |
| 2021-05-10 |
| From the blog of Sebastian Rushworth M.D. Back in January I wrote an article about four randomized controlled trials of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 that had at that time released their results to the public. Each of those four trials had promising results, but each was also too small individually to show any meaningful impact on the hard outcomes we really care about, like death. When I meta-analyzed them together however, the results suddenly appeared very impressive. Here’s what that meta-analysis looked like... ...It showed a massive 78% reduction in mortality in patients treated with covid-19. Mortality is the hardest of hard end points, which means it’s the hardest for researchers to manipulate and therefore the least open to bias. Either someone’s dead, or they’re alive. End of story. You would have thought that this strong overall signal of benefit in the midst of a pandemic would have mobilized the powers that be to arrange multiple large randomized trials to confirm these results as quickly as possible, and that the major medical journals would be falling over each other to be the first to publish these studies. That hasn’t happened. Rather the opposite, in fact. South Africa has even gone so far as to ban doctors from using ivermectin on covid-19 patients. And as far as I can tell, most of the discussion about ivermectin in mainstream media (and in the medical press) has centred not around its relative merits, but more around how its proponents are clearly deluded tin foil hat wearing crazies who are using social media to manipulate the masses. In spite of this, trial results have continued to appear. That means we should now be able to conclude with even greater certainty whether or not ivermectin is effective against covid-19. Since there are so many of these trials popping up now, I’ve decided to limit the discussion here only to the ones I’ve been able to find that had at least 150 participants, and that compared ivermectin to placebo (although I’ll add even the smaller trials I’ve found in to the updated meta-analysis at the end). rtwt |
| Posted by:Thing From Snowy Mountain |
| #3 If there is a cheap and effective treatment available then people won't be afraid, and if they aren't afraid they won't support unfettered spending, lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccination. |
| Posted by: Angstrom 2021-05-10 09:50 |
| #2 The anti-Ivermectin response is quite rational if the real purpose of covid is to reduce the surplus population... |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2021-05-10 09:36 |
| #1 There has never much doubt that a lot of viable Convid-19 treatments and solutions are being hidden and the medical establishment is in constant contradiction with itself. Then add to it the Print, Social and E-Media wanting to hype the problem and/or extend the duration on it for Click-AD-$$$$ & their owners Political Agendas. |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2021-05-10 06:57 |