Ivermectin's Mechanism of Action Against SARS-CoV-2 Described

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

Below is the translation in English of the above article:

Those are all words. Where are the data? Do you not understand that we use the data, not the words?

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Giltil

Now, can you show me the track record of m&m’s for the treatment of Covid19 ?

I would, but there are powerful and entrenched interests which suppress funding, trials, and publishing for m&m research.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

Coming from you, I am disappointed by your reply which is not at your usual level.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Mercer

Those are all words. Where are the data? Do you not understand that we use the data, not the words?

MedinCell has launched a real clinical trial (phase 2) et the data are promising.
Here is a description of the clinical trial:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05305560

And here is the press release

MedinCell announces positive results for the SAIVE clinical study in...

Let’s see what happens next.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Dan_Eastwood

@Giltil

Or even on the basis of the first paper @evograd referred to at 13 to dispute the efficacy of IVM, since we read in the abstract the following : It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR − 0.67 [95% CI − 1.20 to − 0.13], I2 = 28.96%

ROFL!!!

Pass the M&Ms!

I owe a self-correction here. I originally read that confidence interval for reduced mortality as -1.20 to 0.13 instead of -1.20 to negative 0.13, and therefore my great amusement at the emphasis on a non-significant confidence interval. In my defense the confidence interval notation in that paper is inconsistent and confusing, and I find it difficult to believe that kind of sloppiness would make it past even non-statistical review.

That said, the correctly read 95% CI for the Log Odds Ratio is (-1.20, -0.13), which would indicate statistical significance. I decided to look a little deeper …

… but I didn’t need to go any farther than a few lines down the page where it clearly states:

Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.

This is explained in the sensitivity analysis, where they found the statistical significance of this result depended on a single study with high ROB (Risk of Bias). Discounting this questionable result the significance goes away. The authors are correct to question the reliability of this result and call for further clinical trial testing.

@Giltil This is not reliable evidence that IVM has been shown to have any reliable positive effect. It remains possible there is some small clinical effect, too small to be detected in the currently available data. We are looking at a situation where M&Ms could easily be just as beneficial as IVM. I would urge you to consult your physician regarding any personal medical decisions to make regarding IVM, or any other treatment with similar estimates of efficacy. Även om din läkare är svensk.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

@Mercer

Those are all words. Where are the data? Do you not understand that we use the data, not the words?

MedinCell has launched a real clinical trial (phase 2) et the data are promising.

So what? If you are being scientific, you don’t cherry-pick. Cherry-picking is unethical in science, particularly so with clinical trials.

@Giltil

And here is the press release

Press releases aren’t data.

@Giltil

Let’s see what happens next.

How will this be better than all the studies that show no measurable effect? Even if this looks good, it doesn’t justify throwing away all the other data.

Why is this so hard to understand, Gil?

[Tim]

@Mercer

@Giltil

Let’s see what happens next.

How will this be better than all the studies that show no measurable effect? Even if this looks good, it doesn’t justify throwing away all the other data.

Yes, even with unbiased studies, if you run enough of them, you’ll eventually get a significant result, just from the probability of Type 1 error.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Tim

Yes, even with unbiased studies, if you run enough of them, you’ll eventually get a significant result, just from the probability of Type 1 error.

To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield, “I went to an argument and a statistics class broke out.”

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Rumraket

@Giltil

Was it ethical to lockdown whole populations for a virus, SARS2, whose IFR is about the same than the one of the flu

No, sorry mate. But you can’t compare the IFR of SARS-Cov2 now when most people have either been vaccinated or already exposed and recovered multiple times, to the IFR of SARS-Cov2 when it first emerged and nobody had previous exposure.

The IFRs I was talking about are pre-vaccination ones. Sorry mate!

Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly...

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Tim

@Mercer

@Giltil

Let’s see what happens next.

How will this be better than all the studies that show no measurable effect? Even if this looks good, it doesn’t justify throwing away all the other data.

Yes, even with unbiased studies, if you run enough of them, you’ll eventually get a significant result, just from the probability of Type 1 error.

As always, xkcd explains it better:

Now back to minecraft…

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

That paper doesn’t contradict anything I said. LOL

Edit: By the way, your paper deliberately excludes everyone 70 and over from analysis. I don’t really care that the people 60 and up are a much smaller proportion of the population than those aged 59 and under. They’re still people. We can’t just pretend they don’t exist.

Even for the 60-69 cohort the paper says:

The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years.

So for the people aged between 60 and 69, the median infection fatality rate was approximately one in two hundred.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@Giltil

The IFRs I was talking about are pre-vaccination ones. Sorry mate!

It’s so hard to know who to believe, isn’t it? A non-peer reviewed preprint from Ioannidis looking at 31 studies, or a peer-reviewed paper in the Lancet that looked at over 2000 studies.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext

[Nesslig20]

I know this comment was over a week ago, but I had to point this out.

@Giltil

A question: if someone you loved had a very severe form of Covid19, with no hope of recovery, wouldn’t you want him to try IVM, given it’s one of the safer drug ever prescribed?

Setting aside that this has no bearing on the effectiveness of this drug against Covid. This sentiment is dangerous and very unethical IMO. It’s exactly what snake-oil salesmen do when they prey on the emotions of those with terminal illnesses and their families by selling them false hope.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Nesslig20

It’s exactly what snake-oil salesmen do when they prey on the emotions of those with terminal illnesses and their families by selling them false hope.

Your comparison does not hold because doctors who would like to prescribe ivermectin to their dying patients are only motivated by saving their lives, not the lure of money, unlike yours snake-oil salesmen.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Roy

If someone you loved had a very severe form of Covid19, with no hope of recovery, wouldn’t you want her to try homeopathic remedies, colour therapy and crystal power, given that none of them have any effect at all so are even safer than IVM?

Not answered.

Can’t say I’m surprised.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@RonSewell having raised the same kind of outlandish objection as yours at 25, and having replied to him at 35 and 36, I had no reason to repeat myself.

[Nesslig20]

@Giltil

Your comparison does not hold because doctors who would like to prescribe ivermectin to their dying patients are only motivated by saving their lives, not the lure of money, unlike yours snake-oil salesmen.

My comparison was not regarding whether the motive or intentions are benevolent or malevolent. The comparison was specifically regarding the sentiment: If the prognosis is extremely grim, let’s try out anything (that we know isn’t gonna help) just to hold up hope; that you promoted, which is often used to take advantage of a lot of very desperate people.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@RonSewell having raised the same kind of outlandish objection as yours at 25, and having replied to him at 35 and 36, I had no reason to repeat myself.

You may have replied, but you didn’t answer him.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Nesslig20

My comparison was not regarding whether the motive or intentions are benevolent or malevolent. The comparison was specifically regarding the sentiment: If the prognosis is extremely grim, let’s try out anything (that we know isn’t gonna help) just to hold up hope; that you promoted, which is often used to take advantage of a lot of very desperate people.

And to emphasize the point in case @Giltil missed it: The “treatment” is not going to work in either case, regardless of whether the patient is being given it out of benevolence or out of greed.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

So @Giltil just out of curiosity, did you understand that your numbers for the IFR of pre-vaccine SARS2 are actually higher than you thought, and that your study deliberately ignores people 70 and older, or are you going to keep bringing that study up in other venues if you should come across this same point of contention in the future? I’m asking because you’ve said nothing.

Are you convinced you’ve got the wrong idea about the IFR, and if not, why are you convinced it’s different and what is that based on?