This epidemiologist points out several major flaws with that website. For one, the website selectively picks the best result from each paper, which results in the website aggregating a bunch of unrelated measurements, including measurements that were not even each paper's main outcome/measurement. https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422044335076306947
" Ivermectin is currently not approved in the UK for the prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19," [1]
There are no good studies demonstrating the validity of Ivermectin, and the Oxford study is not complete and there's no indication results are positive.
Why are people so crazy about this drug?
It doesn't look like it works, though there is some possibility it will, but we'll only know when the Oxford trial is complete. Given the knowledge we have today, it just isn't a therapy for COVID.
> It doesn't look like it works, though there is some possibility it will, but we'll only know when the Oxford trial is complete. Given the knowledge we have today, it just isn't a therapy for COVID.
There's a big trial ongoing, and the rest of the evidence is mixed. You can't say that "it doesn't look like it works"...we just don't know.
I personally put the prior probability of any intervention working for any illness at a very low number, but too many people are eager to dismiss things -- or accept them -- before they've been tested.
It's disturbing, and is mostly about politics. Many of the same people who dismiss Ivermectin for low-quality evidence eagerly seize upon any dubious shred of evidence for their favored interventions, and enact widespread mandates.
'Non results' from 'not good studies' are negative indicators - not 'neutral' indicators. That's they key thing to understand.
If Ivermectin did work, it should show up, but it's not.
We're doing the Oxford trial really because of some shady information and results, that could possibly indicate that there's some theraputic value. Not because people have high hopes.
Here is Merk's statement:
" It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies."
While it would be good if the Oxford trials showed something, they probably won't.
> Non results' from 'not good studies' are negative indicators - not 'neutral' indicators. That's they key thing to understand.
No, that's a thing you made up. The biggest problem with the "not good studies" of Ivermectin is that they've been underpowered or poorly controlled. The efficacy signal ranges from neutral to strongly positive, but the neutral signal could be due to under-powered studies. The positive results could be due to confounders. Neither are "negative indicators". That's silly. It's like saying that having weak efficacy data for a drug in vitro is a "negative indicator" prior to trials. Any efficacy data is a positive indicator. Some positive indicators are stronger than others.
The Merck quote is an opinion. They're entitled to their opinion, but it's not definitive.
The point is: we'll see. You don't need to predict the future. You can just wait for the data. Science is great that way. Everything else is politics.
It's disturbing how this topic is treated like a tribalistic team sport. Comments like yours seem to follow "Rules for Radicals"[0], such as rules 5 and, especially, 13:
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
You practically invent your own enemies to knock down.
Your reasoning would apply equally well to almost any acknowledgement that there are any differences at all between any two groups on any given subject.
