Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data... by snovv_crash on Wednesday September 22, 2021 @03:52PM (#28620965)

And yet there is a wealth of data on both the safety and the efficacy of covid vaccines, and there is also a wealth of data on the effects of getting covid.

So why are people going for something without any data?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data... by brandonmenc on Wednesday September 22, 2021 @09:29PM (#28624245)

I specifically said boosters.

However, there is no data on the long-term effects of the COVID vaccines, mRNA or otherwise. That's an indisputable scientific fact. They just haven't existed long enough for that data to be available. Hopefully a decade from now we'll discover that they were safe.

We do have data on the long-term effects of Ivermectin.

Someone who is not concerned about COVID will take neither a vaccine nor Ivermectin. Someone who is concerned about COVID but who is also concerned about the long-term effects of the vaccine may opt to take Ivermectin. It's their choice. It could also end up being the wrong choice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data... by snovv_crash on Thursday September 23, 2021 @01:46AM (#28625548)

Can you show any other vaccine which has long term, but not short term negative side effects, which this concern might be based on?

Because this seems like whataboutism, and of course it's impossible to prove a negative, and people are dying while waiting.

> We do have data on the long-term effects of Ivermectin

At bi-annual dosage rates, yes. Not daily or even weekly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data... by brandonmenc on Thursday September 23, 2021 @11:11AM (#28630312)

> Can you show any other vaccine which has long term, but not short term negative side effects, which this concern might be based on?

I don't know. But we still may be in the "short-term side effect" phase for the COVID vaccines. It hasn't even been a year.

> Because this seems like whataboutism, and of course it's impossible to prove a negative, and people are dying while waiting.

Not sure how it's whataboutism to point out that some people have lower risks of contracting serious COVID, and that their decision to take a very new vaccine may be different than someone who is more at risk for contracting serious COVID.

If they miscalculate and die, well, that's their decision.

> At bi-annual dosage rates, yes. Not daily or even weekly.

Are the COVID/Ivermectin studies doctors are referencing for prescription dosages recommending daily Ivermectin use?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data... by snovv_crash on Friday September 24, 2021 @06:43PM (#28648594)

It's been over a year for the initial trials, no long term issues yet. How long seems reasonable to you? What are you basing this timeframe on?

If covid is a low risk, then the vaccine, which is essentially just the immune response to covid without any of the actual viral damage, should be much more benign, yes? I'm failing to see the risk here.

The treatment regimens in current Ivermectin studies are usually daily dosage, for which there are no long term studies for humans. Prophylactic usage of Ivermectin is all over the place, but seems to mostly be within 72h of exposure, so several doses per week, which also doesn't have long term studies. Staying on antibiotics for long periods is generally a bad idea due to disturbing the gut microbiota.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data... by manwe150 on Thursday September 23, 2021 @12:18AM (#28625177)

The long term effect of ivermectin seems to be long-COVID (according to the article), which is rare, but just as bad as being unvaccinated, if not worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]