Just use google directly to find the trials I’m talking about, instead of being blinded by the ivm meta site creators (who created a similar site last year for HCQ). IvmMeta mixes in poor quality studies with studies that actually found no significant effect for IVM and claims they all are pro IVM.
I couldn't help but notice your use of purposely vague and misleading weasel words such as "positive effect".
Meanwhile I recall reading one of those ivermectin studies presented on another discussion on HN, and it certainly raised some red flags regarding how it was put together. For instance, if my memory doesn't fail me, it relied on an astonishingly small sample (100 patients, all reported as mild cases, divided into control and treatment) and to make matters worse the control group was given hydroxychloroquine instead of a placebo, effectively comparing ivermectin to hydroxychloroquine.
In the end the study reported that the fatality rate in the control and treatment groups was the same, and the only claim was that the statistical analysis suggested more patients from the ivermectin group were discharged earlier, which could very well be just statistical noise. Other than this the paper reported no benefit at all.
So, this is what weasel words buy: they are used to hide facts and misguide people. So unless you actually substantiate your claims and point exactly the very best study you feel shows that said "positive effect" is and how it was quantified, I have to dismiss your claim as something between a baseless assertion and blatant misinformation.
But then you pull a bait-and-switch in your own comment, complaining about just one study, which you completely neglect to cite (so it could be made up, for all we know). You subtly outsource your opinion, trying to lend it an air of objectivity by saying that it "raised some red flags" (after you accused him of using weasel words). You couch the whole comment in an air of faux fairness by writing as if you are some judge called upon to arbitrate a dispute, who just has to rule a certain way because, of course, that's what the evidence requires. And you imply that your unsourced complaint about one study invalidates all such studies, therefore he must be wrong.
You accused him of being purposely misleading, but at least he offered a link, and he didn't try to trick people into thinking that a criticism of one thing invalidates other things, which you did.
Your whole comment is a textbook example of propaganda techniques. And then you wonder why people don't know what to believe anymore. It's like the whole Internet is a political, psychological battleground for public mindshare, and the truth doesn't matter at all.
I suppose it would be easier to just point out a single paper out of said 60 that supported the thesis that ivermectin works.
Somehow, in spite of the claim that there are so many papers, it seems it's impossible to actually find a single one that does support the claim.
I did more than that: I pointed out not only the use of weasel words but also that no assertion is substantiated in what boils down to a baseless appeal to authority.
Consequently, it's critical that, for the sake of objectiveness and to avoid spreading misinformation, these personal assertions cannot be backed up by handwaving and instead must be supported by concrete evidence, such as references to said studies, if they exist at all.
Actually it is. The whole point of that was to illustrate the importance of actually looking into what these papers actually said, if they exist at all, instead of pulling the appeal to authority card with numbers pulled out of thin air.
The OP asserted that ivermectin worked. He proceeded to state that 60 papers report it. Well... Where are they? Can anyone like me actually take a look at one of these supposedly decisive papers? I'd be happy if I could just check the best one out of the hypothetical 60.
>I couldn't help but notice your use of purposely vague and misleading weasel words such as "positive effect".
This isn't a weasel word, this is exactly the correct term to capture the uncertainty considering that there has to my knowledge not been a large scale double blind RCT. But there are, once again, over 60 studies showing positive effect which, individually, are not absolute proof that the medicine works, but together clearly show promise. Your bias is rather extreme and frankly I don't appreciate your dishonest insinuation that I am somehow arguing in bad faith. Again, I linked a collection of more than 60 positive studies. It is unlikely that every one is poor quality and/or fraudulent.
Here is the link again[0], maybe you could actually click the link before responding, as you should have done previously. And yes, I've read a number of them. I can also provide the following [1] which suggests (in silico) the mechanism of action of ivermectin is inhibition of protease, which is the target enzyme of at least one other drug under development by pfizer for treatment of covid.
If you think "positive effect" is a weasel word then perhaps you do not understand the scientific process. I'm not claiming with certainty that ivermectin works, only that in light of, again, some 60 studies showing positive effect, inneffectiveness is unlikely. While you check these sources, please also check your rabid bias.
[0]ivmmeta.com
There are more than 60 peer reviewed studies showing positive effect for ivermectin. Similarly the single trial that the media touted as "proof" that HCQ did not work administered what amounted to an overdose to terminally ill patients, in contrast to the recommended early/prophylactic regimen.
These lies have gone on for far too long - no thanks to irresponsible and, frankly, inexcusable censorship by fb, youtube et al on grounds of "misinformation".
This site[0] has been up for over a year now and the citation count has continued to grow.
It seems people are more interested in poo pooing proponents of ivermectin/HCQ than actually examining evidence. Medicine should not be a political team sport.
0. ivmmeta.com