Well, imagine that…

Large controlled study on Ivermectin prophylaxis

92% reduction in COVID deaths. And it doesn’t matter which variant.

27 thoughts on “Well, imagine that…

  1. Yes, if you live in an area where parasitic worms are endemic this drug kills them and eliminates their weakening effects giving you a better chance to survive Covid. That was the final explanation for the similar results in Africa at the beginning of the pandemic.

    Like

      1. “This study was not out in the jungle, it is a large city.”
        Brazil has the Libertarian society of your dreams. As a result it has very significant proportion of its people living in total squalor in and around its cities.

        We are all waiting with baited breath for the gotcha that you are planning!

        Like

        1. Again, you didn’t read the study.

          The participants were regular users of the health system, not sickly slum dwellers. They were screened and matched for comorbidities

          But you are politically bound to Ivermectin not working, you just dragged out wild speculation about parasites because a carefully done study goes against your political narrative.

          How many lives would have been saved had we let people who did not trust the vaccines use prophylactic Ivermectin, and what might we have learned testing it here in a low parasite population?

          Like

          1. My comment about parasites was hardly “wild speculation.” It was the final finding of similar studies in Africa.

            I not reluctant to admit that when it comes to any medicine touted by our former Snake-oil-salesman-in-chief that I am from Missouri. If that was the big gotcha, it is kind of a bust.

            Like

          2. The point is you rejected it automatically, without reading.

            These are not jungle villagers or ghetto dwellers, they are regular users of their health system and not people half dead from parasites.

            But it doesn’t fit your political narrative, so you dismiss it without reading.

            Other alternatives might turn out to be very important for us if our vaccines become ineffective due to Antigenic Original Sin

            But for you, politics trumps science.

            Like

          3. I did not reject it. I did not dispute what it found. I did not accuse the authors of being “corrupt” as you have done every time you see a climate science study that you do not like. I simply offered a plausible explanation of why worm poison might be useful as it had proved to be in African nations.

            Unlike you, I trust the medical scientists that we employ at the FDA and CDC. If they assess this and other studies and develop information on the safety of ingesting worm pills indefinitely and recommend this approach I would accept their advice. Until then, I will stick with vaccination as my principle means of lowering my personal risk.

            Like

          4. “Continuing to trust the FDA and CDC at this point is as silly as trusting the FBI and DOJ.”

            And that remark shows what a very silly fellow you are. Not that we needed any reminding.

            Like

  2. We seem to have arrived at the point where data is beginning to collect around a number of early Covid-19 speculations. The instant study is particularly encouraging.

    Like

    1. Both of your cites are from before the study completed peer review and was published.

      Politifact is just an appeal to authority.

      The HFB article is interesting in that it claims that the study group that did so much better might not have taken the
      Ivermectin consistently or for the full time.

      Think about that.

      If they took less of the drug than recommended, and it still reduced deaths by 92% then it worked BETTER than the study indicated.

      Like

      1. “Both of your cites are from before the study completed peer review and was published.”

        Did something material change between the draft and final copy? I mean besides dropping the reference to the conflicts of interest. If not, you are blowing smoke with that “criticism.”

        “Think about that”
        Maybe you should think about the point made – the study was too sloppy to be taken at face value. That is a very legitimate criticism, don’t you think?

        “just an appeal to authority”
        Isn’t that kind of what a peer review is?

        Bottom line – with these insights into such qualitative issues, it is clear you were a little bit foolish to be sitting on your high horse vis a vis what the FDA & CDC should have been doing.

        Like

        1. You do not understand the peer review process.

          When done right, which is generally the case in medical science(though not climate) experts in the field examine methods and offer criticism and corrections prior to publication.

          That is not an appeal to authority, it is a negotiation among experts as to whether a paper should be published and what claims it should or should not make.

          Like

          1. “You do not understand the peer review process.”

            I think I do. And this “observation” is a total dodge. Did anything material change from the draft version to the published version? Once a study is in the can (draft submitted) the authors cannot go back in time to change their methods, samples or controls.

            What you call an “appeal to authority” is a de facto peer review with other experts in the field offering criticisms.

            Like

          2. Of course papers are updated in the course of peer review. If errors in statistical analysis are uncovered, they would be corrected before publication,

            It is not a binary, publish or don’t, process.

            Like

          3. “Of course papers are updated in the course of peer review”

            You are still dodging. What about THIS paper. You tried to disqualify the criticisms because the critics only had the draft and not the peer reviewed final product. Were they materially different?

            As a point of reference the paper was submitted on August 22. The peer review was completed on August 27. Not much time for that “negotiation” you were talking about. It seems very likely that there were not major changes in such a brief process.

            By the way, the BBC ran a story last year which is relevant to your criticism of the FDA and CDC.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

            Like

          4. You think that nothing went on in the peer review process between last December and Aug 22? That would have been when the final version was submitted. You can be sure there was a great deal of communication between Dec and Aug. That’s what the preprint is for.

            Like

          5. And that article is from Oct 2021.

            But it does raise an interesting point.

            Ivermectin is very safe when given in human sized doses, So, at a time when there was no alternative therapy available, what was the justification for not letting people try it?

            At worst, it could have been proven ineffective by large scale experience and at best we could have had an effective therapeutic a year earlier.

            So, other that denying people an alternative to vaccination, what, other than blatant authoritarianism was the reason?

            Like

          6. “what was the justification for not letting people try it?”

            Approving something that is NOT effective for general use is a bad idea if it is a replacement for something that IS effective. In this case, vaccination.

            Like

          7. “So, at a time when there was no alternative therapy available”

            This Brazil study was not about using ivermectin as a therapy. It was using it as a prevention.

            Like

          8. “You think that nothing went on in the peer review process between last December and Aug 22?”

            I was going by the header for this publication – five days of peer review. However, I take your point that this is essentially the same study that was publicized last December.

            So, what has changed? I grant you it COULD have, but did it? The methods are what they were. Peer review does not let you go back in time an make a sloppy study not sloppy. And that was the criticism then.

            Like

        2. RE: “I mean besides dropping the reference to the conflicts of interest.”

          There was no dropping of the reference to the conflicts of interest.

          Like

  3. Dictator Murphy.

    It has ring to it but you’re consistently over your head in these discussions. The good Doctor may begin to put on weight from eating your lunch so often.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s