Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

We've got a new drug? (for COVID!)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    I usually go from the "New Posts" link on the Search page, and usually don't even notice what subforum I'm in. It's only because of Providence and the relative inactivity of the Sorority that I haven't accidentally ended up posting in a Forbidden Zone.

    But even aside from that, it would never have remotely occurred to me to interpret "Science" so strictly on an Internet discussion board, especially since the subforum rules don't suggest such.
    I'm not trying to police the forum - it just struck me as curious. You've basically said that science has nothing to offer you, since you won't accept evidence. Yet here you are.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Soooooo... Am I the only one who immediately has the old Huey Lewis song run through their mind whenever they see the title of this thread?
      Glad somebody got it.

      Man, i hated that song, yet it still pops into my head regardless.
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #33

        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
        I will help you on the studies for Ivermectin. Check out https://c19ivermectin.com/ and you can point out what is wrong with the studies. Maybe you could help me by pointing out the studies that show harmful effects of Ivermectin. I tried checking a site that was anti-Ivermectin and the links it gave did not show actual bad effects of Ivermectin.
        Sure, let's look at the studies there.

        The overall meta-analysis they do is completely useless. They lump together studies that use different doses, different end points, include a random assortment of other drugs, etc. Since the studies aren't comparable, they shouldn't be included in the same meta-analysis. So, we can disregard that.

        So, let's go down a few of the articles that are posted there.

        First one is a draft, non peer reviewed; it's also retrospective and open label, so lots of potential for bias. 17% of those who got ivermectin had adverse effects, and 3% discontinued because of that. There's a positive effect from ivermectin, but no dose dependence.

        Next up is a small trial using viral load as a measure. No significant results.

        Next up is a study that isn't available online. But it uses ivermectin, zinc, vitamin C, and azithromycin, so there's no way to isolate the effect of any of these, presuming there is an effect.

        There's a couple of meta analyses, so not original studies, and two computer modeling papers on possible biochemical interactions, so nothing relevant there.

        Next study is a mess - a retrospective look at self-prescribed dosing using antibody levels as a measure of COVID progression. The study is small, and we know post-disease antibody levels vary greatly, so this isn't going to tell us anything.

        Next up is a news report (!).

        After that is a review of published randomized trials, showing they had too few people enrolled to reach statistical significance.


        I could go on, but it's clear that the vast majority of entries there have nothing to do with evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness. The few that do are of pretty low quality. Which is exactly what most health authorities are saying. It is entirely possible that ivermectin is effective, but there's been no clear-cut evidence presented yet. Instead, we have a lot of small, poorly controlled trials with protocols that are all different, making it impossible to tell what's going on.

        At least two of the studies i looked at also described adverse effects. So if you're claiming "the links it gave did not show actual bad effects of Ivermectin", then you're just not reading very carefully.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          Glad somebody got it.

          Man, i hated that song, yet it still pops into my head regardless.
          Ironically at the time people joked about how he was like your dad singing rock. The song is indeed one that just sticks with you, but the video brought back a lot of memories of a different era.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post

            Sure, let's look at the studies there.

            The overall meta-analysis they do is completely useless. They lump together studies that use different doses, different end points, include a random assortment of other drugs, etc. Since the studies aren't comparable, they shouldn't be included in the same meta-analysis. So, we can disregard that.

            So, let's go down a few of the articles that are posted there.

            First one is a draft, non peer reviewed; it's also retrospective and open label, so lots of potential for bias. 17% of those who got ivermectin had adverse effects, and 3% discontinued because of that. There's a positive effect from ivermectin, but no dose dependence.

            Next up is a small trial using viral load as a measure. No significant results.

            Next up is a study that isn't available online. But it uses ivermectin, zinc, vitamin C, and azithromycin, so there's no way to isolate the effect of any of these, presuming there is an effect.

            There's a couple of meta analyses, so not original studies, and two computer modeling papers on possible biochemical interactions, so nothing relevant there.

            Next study is a mess - a retrospective look at self-prescribed dosing using antibody levels as a measure of COVID progression. The study is small, and we know post-disease antibody levels vary greatly, so this isn't going to tell us anything.

            Next up is a news report (!).

            After that is a review of published randomized trials, showing they had too few people enrolled to reach statistical significance.


            I could go on, but it's clear that the vast majority of entries there have nothing to do with evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness. The few that do are of pretty low quality. Which is exactly what most health authorities are saying. It is entirely possible that ivermectin is effective, but there's been no clear-cut evidence presented yet. Instead, we have a lot of small, poorly controlled trials with protocols that are all different, making it impossible to tell what's going on.

            At least two of the studies i looked at also described adverse effects. So if you're claiming "the links it gave did not show actual bad effects of Ivermectin", then you're just not reading very carefully.
            It is not particularly best to just go straight down the list. These are just sorted by date. I am glad that someone at least has started to comment on these. It is much more helpful than the blank stares I have been getting when I suggest people look at the science.

            The study that mixes stuff together should be fine as a study on a protocol. We are not actually studying Ivermectin as a new medicine on its own. The focus at this time has been on treating covid-19 or, better yet, preventing people from getting to that stage.

            I have not tried to analyze the quality of meta analyses. There was an article ridiculing these sites that share the complete studies and do a rough meta analysis but that article should have presented its own rather than just complaining about things.

            I did note one study that had bad results but the study purposely tested very high doses.

            You do also realize that these studies are not well funded so they just represent the best that can be done without high levels of funding. These results certainly sound better than the hospitals that just throw people on ventilators which at best are like 15% success rates.

            As far as the new drug, it is hardly out the starting gate. the c19study.com seems only to have one or two studies ... and the news release about Merck's new proposed drug. So, we don't have much to go on with that.

            Comment


            • #36
              In a recent Tucker Carlson interview I haven't been able to find online, Bret Weinstein characterized the Ivermectin data as "noisy," not persuasive enough for him to recommend the drug to others, but persuasive enough that he and his wife are taking it prophylactically.
              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Federalist.

              Nationalist Christian.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

              Justice for Matthew Perna!

              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                In a recent Tucker Carlson interview I haven't been able to find online, Bret Weinstein characterized the Ivermectin data as "noisy," not persuasive enough for him to recommend the drug to others, but persuasive enough that he and his wife are taking it prophylactically.
                It's certainly possible that ivermectin has some small positive effect. The studies don't rule that out. But if it had a strong positive effect, that would have been seen. And it's also possible that it has no positive effect at all.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                  It's certainly possible that ivermectin has some small positive effect. The studies don't rule that out. But if it had a strong positive effect, that would have been seen. And it's also possible that it has no positive effect at all.
                  The effects have been very strong. The studies tend to show that effectiveness even if not always done as well as billion dollar studies. Maybe one study or a second was trying to push things too far and failed. All the reports from medical doctors using this have been quite favorable too.

                  It is very safe to use, especially one dose a week. So, those who are susceptible to getting sick (i.e., not bolstering their immune system in general) would do okay without getting the experimental covid shots. This really is at the level of a no-brainer. This is like wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle. There's not much to lose by wearing that helmet -- it has helped for a long time -- like Ivermectin.
                  Last edited by mikewhitney; 10-04-2021, 02:00 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Pro-HCQ article. Authors include Dr. Risch and the controversial Dr. McCullough.

                    Recent HCQ study cited in above article. Among the many contributors is the controversial Dr. Raoult.


                    Abstract

                    We evaluated the age-specific mortality of unselected adult outpatients infected with SARS-CoV-2 treated early in a dedicated COVID-19 day hospital and we assessed whether the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) + azithromycin (AZ) was associated with improved survival in this cohort. A retrospective monocentric cohort study was conducted in the day hospital of our center from March to December 2020 in adults with PCR-proven infection who were treated as outpatients with a standardized protocol. The primary endpoint was 6-week mortality, and secondary endpoints were transfer to the intensive care unit and hospitalization rate. Among 10,429 patients (median age, 45 [IQR 32–57] years; 5597 [53.7%] women), 16 died (0.15%). The infection fatality rate was 0.06% among the 8315 patients treated with HCQ+AZ. No deaths occurred among the 8414 patients younger than 60 years. Older age and male sex were associated with a higher risk of death, ICU transfer, and hospitalization. Treatment with HCQ+AZ (0.17 [0.06–0.48]) was associated with a lower risk of death, independently of age, sex and epidemic period. Meta-analysis evidenced consistency with 4 previous outpatient studies (32,124 patients—Odds ratio 0.31 [0.20–0.47], I2



                    = 0%). Early ambulatory treatment of COVID-19 with HCQ+AZ as a standard of care is associated with very low mortality, and HCQ+AZ improve COVID-19 survival compared to other regimens.

                    Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Hydroxychloroquine; Azithromycin; Ambulatory; Outpatients; Treatment
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Federalist.

                    Nationalist Christian.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                    Justice for Matthew Perna!

                    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                      Pro-HCQ article. Authors include Dr. Risch and the controversial Dr. McCullough.

                      Recent HCQ study cited in above article. Among the many contributors is the controversial Dr. Raoult.
                      By "controversial", do you mean "known to have committed research fraud"?

                      In any case, the study randomly mixes three different treatments, making it hard to know what (if anything) is having an effect. A key paragraph seems to be here:
                      There were 5 deaths among the 8315 patients who received HCQ+AZ (0.6 on 1000 patients) and 11 among the 2114 who received other treatments (p < 0.0001). There were 9 deaths among the 1091 patients who received AZ alone (0.82%) and 2 deaths among those who received no treatment.
                      This is out of 16 deaths total. So, tiny numbers, and reasonable fraction of the dead received chloroquine.

                      So, methodologically, the study's terrible, and the numbers aren't even very compelling.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        You do also realize that these studies are not well funded so they just represent the best that can be done without high levels of funding. These results certainly sound better than the hospitals that just throw people on ventilators which at best are like 15% success rates.
                        Sure, that's the thing, they "sound better." But science is a way of testing whether something that sounds good actually is. That's why you should actually be able to read the papers yourself before arguing (as you're doing here) that "the effects have been very strong." If you're waiting for someone else to look over the papers in detail, then you cannot possibly know that.

                        We don't currently know whether ivermectin is better than ventilators for severe cases, because most of the studies out there are tiny populations that wouldn't have ended up on a ventilator regardless. You can't just look at the abstracts of a couple of those and decide "sounds good to me!"

                        I mean, you can, but nobody would have any reason to trust your judgement.
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                          As long as there are ignorant people, there will be new expensive alternatives to Ivermectin. Who is the one misled? The one who accepts the scientific studies of the effectiveness of Ivermectin or the one seeking dangerous experimental technologies?
                          What if it is the same price as Ivermectin? or even free?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            Sure, that's the thing, they "sound better." But science is a way of testing whether something that sounds good actually is. That's why you should actually be able to read the papers yourself before arguing (as you're doing here) that "the effects have been very strong." If you're waiting for someone else to look over the papers in detail, then you cannot possibly know that.

                            We don't currently know whether ivermectin is better than ventilators for severe cases, because most of the studies out there are tiny populations that wouldn't have ended up on a ventilator regardless. You can't just look at the abstracts of a couple of those and decide "sounds good to me!"

                            I mean, you can, but nobody would have any reason to trust your judgement.
                            As an aside, please feel free to go into however much detail you want to wrt why these studies are being rejected by the medical research community. I'll admit I could be convinced that 5 deaths out of over 8000 treated would look better than 11 out of 2000 not treated. I tend to trust the main stream science over the side shows, but that doesn't mean I can prove to myself in every case why the sideshows are wrong, or perhaps in this case, not strong enough to justify treatment with ivermectin.
                            Don’t waste your time with explanations, people only hear what they want to hear.
                            --- Paulo Coelho

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                              As an aside, please feel free to go into however much detail you want to wrt why these studies are being rejected by the medical research community. I'll admit I could be convinced that 5 deaths out of over 8000 treated would look better than 11 out of 2000 not treated. I tend to trust the main stream science over the side shows, but that doesn't mean I can prove to myself in every case why the sideshows are wrong, or perhaps in this case, not strong enough to justify treatment with ivermectin.
                              To be clear, while some of them are being rejected due to methodological problems, the primary issue is that most studies are small, and done in a way that they aren't equivalent, and so their patient populations can't be combined and treated as a single, larger study. The clearest way to see this is to go to this other page on the site, and scroll down past the blue box and look at the list of studies. For one, it's clear that the endpoints are all over the place - some measure symptoms, others death, others hospitalization. The dose used varies by over an order of magnitude. Not mentioned there is the fact that a lot of them use ivermectin in association with a varying cocktail of other stuff (examples include zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D, azithromycin, etc.), so it's impossible to determine what, if anything, is having an effect.

                              As a result of this methodological chaos, you can't combine any of this into a valid meta-analysis. So you are left with the individual studies, which typically look at less than 50 people. And with so few people, it's common for random chance to completely throw off the statistics.

                              Think of rolling a pair of dice 50 times. On average, you'd expect to roll two sixes about 1.5x times. But it wouldn't be shocking if you rolled that zero times, or if you rolled it four times. If that sort of randomness biases things towards either the experimental or control groups, you could get something that looked good, but was actually meaningless randomness.

                              (And, since there's a bias towards reporting positive results, you'd expect the published record to amplify one half of that randomness.)

                              That's where we're at with ivermectin right now. I understand that a large, randomized, and blinded trial is currently in progress, which could finally bring some clarity. But the data we have now just isn't good enough to draw any conclusions.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                Sure, that's the thing, they "sound better." But science is a way of testing whether something that sounds good actually is. That's why you should actually be able to read the papers yourself before arguing (as you're doing here) that "the effects have been very strong." If you're waiting for someone else to look over the papers in detail, then you cannot possibly know that.

                                We don't currently know whether ivermectin is better than ventilators for severe cases, because most of the studies out there are tiny populations that wouldn't have ended up on a ventilator regardless. You can't just look at the abstracts of a couple of those and decide "sounds good to me!"

                                I mean, you can, but nobody would have any reason to trust your judgement.
                                I'm basically passing on information that a 1000 or more doctors are passing on. Like mentioned earlier, the inclusion of studies that have an Ivermectin protocol rather than just Ivermectin, still is okay in that category, for the purpose of sorting information. These sort of studies are the best we have without getting dedicated funding to the independent researchers. Plus, the tendency of these studies is in the positive effects. We may not have the ultimate luxury science here but we have been working in an emergency situation where the covid shots are already proving to only be temporary. The scientific culture already has proven sporadic where one or two major studies were pulled from a major journal.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 09-25-2022, 05:59 AM
                                4 responses
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-24-2022, 12:17 PM
                                1 response
                                20 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-21-2022, 12:31 PM
                                1 response
                                12 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-19-2022, 08:29 PM
                                0 responses
                                11 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-16-2022, 10:14 AM
                                0 responses
                                14 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X