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

  • #46
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    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.
    Much of what you're saying here confirms the impression I've been getting. Too small of sample sizes and a lot of comparing oranges to apples. That's not to say that the results are wrong but rather they're too murky to be much use.

    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Much of what you're saying here confirms the impression I've been getting. Too small of sample sizes and a lot of comparing oranges to apples. That's not to say that the results are wrong but rather they're too murky to be much use.
      One thing I was just thinking would help is if some correlation were done between the general death-to-infection rate in a community was compared to the death-to-infection rate of those treated with Ivermectin protocols in the same community.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
        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.
        What exactly is "sorting information"?
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          What exactly is "sorting information"?
          i just mean that the newest studies or reports are listed first ... the oldest are toward the end. The studies are not ordered from best to worst or cheapest to most expensive.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            By "controversial", do you mean "known to have committed research fraud"?
            Yes and no. I remembered he'd been highly respected but had become highly controversial, but I didn't recall why, and didn't feel like looking it up.

            I noticed that he was listed last among the many people involved in the study, and that Risch et al in their little review referred to the study by the name of the first-listed researcher, Miller, which seems sensible. But when Dr. Steven Smith referenced the study on Laura Ingraham's show, he only referred to Raoult. I admit that it did and does bother me that he continues to show such undiluted affection for Dr. Raoult.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Nationalist.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post

              What if it is the same price as Ivermectin? or even free?
              Ivermectin is under $4 per tablet.

              Unpronouncium, or whatever the new drug is called, is about $700 for a course of treatment.
              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Nationalist.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                Ivermectin is under $4 per tablet.

                Unpronouncium, or whatever the new drug is called, is about $700 for a course of treatment.
                Given that those studies that can stand peer review show little to no positive effect from ivermectin, and a substantial effect from the new drug , you get what you pay for - as the saying goes.

                And my guess would be that a drug that substantially hinders covid might be heavily government subsidized, but at the very least covered with some small co-pay by insurance - which due to the affordable care act technically everyone should be able to have at this point. And if not, now might be a good time to sign up
                My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize if words of mine written in this post or others reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                  Ivermectin is under $4 per tablet.

                  Unpronouncium, or whatever the new drug is called, is about $700 for a course of treatment.
                  Thanks. I found an article about it.

                  Like the vast majority of medicines on the market, molnupiravir — which was originally investigated as a possible treatment for Venezuelan equine encephalitis — was developed using government funds.
                  https://theintercept.com/2021/10/05/...rck-ridgeback/


                  Hey! It looks like it was initially a horse medicine too like Ivermectin! Maybe the conspiracy guys like Mike will accept it now!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                    Yes and no. I remembered he'd been highly respected but had become highly controversial, but I didn't recall why, and didn't feel like looking it up.

                    I noticed that he was listed last among the many people involved in the study, and that Risch et al in their little review referred to the study by the name of the first-listed researcher, Miller, which seems sensible. But when Dr. Steven Smith referenced the study on Laura Ingraham's show, he only referred to Raoult. I admit that it did and does bother me that he continues to show such undiluted affection for Dr. Raoult.
                    For context on that: in academics papers, it's traditional to put the person who did the most work as first author, and the person who runs the lab and/or got the grant money for the project is the last author. Standard citation format is always first author et. al. So, depending on context, you'll often see either the first or last author mentioned.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                      Thanks. I found an article about it.

                      Like the vast majority of medicines on the market, molnupiravir — which was originally investigated as a possible treatment for Venezuelan equine encephalitis — was developed using government funds.
                      https://theintercept.com/2021/10/05/...rck-ridgeback/


                      Hey! It looks like it was initially a horse medicine too like Ivermectin! Maybe the conspiracy guys like Mike will accept it now!
                      It is hard to know how much of that is overcharging and how much of that is necessary to recoup cost of development. I would 'think' the potential to recoup investment at a lower cost is high given the amount of covid spread here and across the world (and given it was at least partially subsidized by government funds in development). Merck is going to present a case that says 'we go broke if we don't charge this much', and those blowing the whistle on them as it were will claim this is price gouging pure and simple and that one penny over $18 given a production cost of $17 and some change is nothing but pure greed. I would guess reality is in-between those two extremes, with the greediness of company CEO's and stock investors balancing it more towards overcharging than under.
                      My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize if words of mine written in this post or others reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        For context on that: in academics papers, it's traditional to put the person who did the most work as first author, and the person who runs the lab and/or got the grant money for the project is the last author. Standard citation format is always first author et. al. So, depending on context, you'll often see either the first or last author mentioned.
                        Interesting, I didn't know that about the last name listed.

                        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


                        • #57
                          Well, it's good to hear some good news about coronavirus...

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            New drug #2 has been announced! This one's from Pfizer, and it uses a different mechanism of action from the Merck drug. The only clinical data on it comes from a company press release, but it sounds fantastic: given to high risk patients, it dropped hospitalizations and deaths by roughly 90%. Because it uses a different mechanism, there's no reason the two drugs couldn't be given simultaneously — it's likely they'd have an additive effect.

                            While the clinical data hasn't been released, Pfizer did just publish a paper describing the drug's history. It was originally developed to target the original SARS-CoV-1 virus. Specifically, it targets a protease (protein-cutting enzyme) encoded by the virus that's needed to activate a few of the viruses proteins (some of the virus' genes encode a single, long protein that needs to be cut into multiple smaller pieces, each of which performs different functions). The drug is a big complicated molecule that's a combination of stretches that look like linked amino acids that the protease would target, but embedded in a chemical context that keeps the protease from digesting them.

                            The original version of the drug fell in the typical category of "works great in a test tube, but won't work as a pill". It didn't cross cell membranes easily, and wasn't absorbed in the digestive system. It took crafting and testing multiple chemical relatives to get something that was effective in pill form. If you've ever wondered why drug development is expensive, hiring enough experienced chemists to do that sort of thing is one part of the reasons.

                            One positive feature of this drug is that it appears to be able to bind to the proteases of many related viruses, so could be effective against emerging threats.
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              New drug #2 has been announced! This one's from Pfizer, and it uses a different mechanism of action from the Merck drug. The only clinical data on it comes from a company press release, but it sounds fantastic: given to high risk patients, it dropped hospitalizations and deaths by roughly 90%. Because it uses a different mechanism, there's no reason the two drugs couldn't be given simultaneously — it's likely they'd have an additive effect.

                              While the clinical data hasn't been released, Pfizer did just publish a paper describing the drug's history. It was originally developed to target the original SARS-CoV-1 virus. Specifically, it targets a protease (protein-cutting enzyme) encoded by the virus that's needed to activate a few of the viruses proteins (some of the virus' genes encode a single, long protein that needs to be cut into multiple smaller pieces, each of which performs different functions). The drug is a big complicated molecule that's a combination of stretches that look like linked amino acids that the protease would target, but embedded in a chemical context that keeps the protease from digesting them.

                              The original version of the drug fell in the typical category of "works great in a test tube, but won't work as a pill". It didn't cross cell membranes easily, and wasn't absorbed in the digestive system. It took crafting and testing multiple chemical relatives to get something that was effective in pill form. If you've ever wondered why drug development is expensive, hiring enough experienced chemists to do that sort of thing is one part of the reasons.

                              One positive feature of this drug is that it appears to be able to bind to the proteases of many related viruses, so could be effective against emerging threats.
                              Absconded ...

                              Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                              Copypasta from the Lurch's Merck thread.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                                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.

                                References please!?!?!?!?
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 11-24-2021, 08:21 AM
                                2 responses
                                13 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 11-16-2021, 09:11 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post lee_merrill  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 11-10-2021, 08:44 AM
                                8 responses
                                34 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Lariliss, 11-02-2021, 12:23 PM
                                2 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Lariliss  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 10-30-2021, 04:22 PM
                                30 responses
                                188 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post TheLurch  
                                Working...
                                X