>Shouldn’t I be equally skeptical of Paxlovid now that it’s having its own super-promising early trials?
> No. For one thing, this isn’t amateur hour anymore. The ivermectin trials were random people who bungled their experiments or just plain made them up. They had sample sizes of (going through the first few on my notes) 25, 116, and 66 people. The Paxlovid trial was run by the best scientists Pfizer’s money can buy, and had a sample size of 1,219 (it would have been 3,000 if they hadn’t stopped it early).
For benefit of those who did not read his long post about ivermectin: the best estimate from available data is that any benefit seen comes from treating co-morbid worm infestations.
(There is lots of test-tube evidence suggesting ivermectin was worth trying; but actual clinical effectiveness is all that really matters, in the end, and that failed.)
Wasn’t it a guestimation of 50/50 that relied on doctors not realizing treating people for covid who also had worms with steroids would cause the worms to go into hyper growth?
Great article but that last bit about assuming doctors in areas where worm infections are common don’t know they can’t treat the infected with steroids, seems a big stretch.
> The Paxlovid trial was run by the best scientists Pfizer’s money can buy
Well, buying scientists is exactly the problem at hand with Pfizer et al.
And before one jump to call me names, it's a very similar situation to tabacco industry buying experiments on cigarettes, or oil industry and the climate change. What science need is more independent trials.
> No. For one thing, this isn’t amateur hour anymore. The ivermectin trials were random people who bungled their experiments or just plain made them up. They had sample sizes of (going through the first few on my notes) 25, 116, and 66 people. The Paxlovid trial was run by the best scientists Pfizer’s money can buy, and had a sample size of 1,219 (it would have been 3,000 if they hadn’t stopped it early).