TrumpLyftAlles | 99 points
Where to find the results of ivermectin trials quickly and easilySummary of ivermectin's impact on fatalities from 3 meta-analyses of the ivermectin research:
1) Fatalities reduced 86% with early treatment, 70% with late treatment, 99% via prophylaxis
2) Fatalities reduced 88% for mild/moderate illness, 82% for severe illness
3) Fatalities reduced 75% for mild/moderate illness
1) This is a meta-analysis of 35 (as of 2021-01-26) ivermectin trials:
It found that ivermectin early treatment with ivermectin reduces fatalities 86%; late treatment by 70%; and prophylaxis by 99%. Its forest plot for fatalities is here.
The site is also available as a PDF that you can send to your MD and family and friends.
2) This (PDF) is a meta-analysis by Tess Lawrie MBBCh, PhD, an independent UK researcher. Her forest plot of RCTs showing fewer deaths with ivermectin is here. The analysis concludes that ivermectin reduces fatalities for mild and moderate illness by 88%; and severe illness by 82%.
3) Here (PDF) is a meta-analysis of 18 RCTs by Dr. Patrick Hill et al. which Dr. Hill presented to NIH on 2021-01-06. Reviewing 6 RCTs it concluded that ivermectin reduced fatalities by 75%.
For a nicely-summarized list of 35 (as of 2021-01-26) trials and 20 other studies, all of which link to the trial/study reports:
For a review of ivermectin research by the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, a consortium of 10 US MDs (including Drs. Marik and Kory) who advocate for the use ivermectin for prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment, see this paper (PDF):
The PDF above presents the ivermectin prophylaxis research, 4 observational studies and 3 RCTs, all of which were statistically significant, in this chart.
FLCCC has a one-page PDF summarizing the ivermectin research. Here it is as an image.
Here is the video of FLCCC's 2020-12-04 call-to-action press conference. It is discussed on this sub here.
This is the video of FLCCC President Dr. Kory's testimony advocating for early treatment with ivermectin before the US Senate on 2020-12-08. As of 2021-01-26, it has 7.7 million views (and another 482K views of another version).
Ivermectin is an extremely safe drug: 4+ billion doses taken over 30+ years by billion(s) of people, fewer than 10 fatalities (excluding those with the loa loa parasite). Here is a discussion of two excellent safety studies.
Some of the ivermectin RCTs and other important ivermectin studies, and their results, are posted as replies to this post. (Thanks a lot, /u/usernaeim!)
If you have questions about ivermectin, post them to Ivermectin Conversations or (if they will be interesting to the sub) as main posts to the sub, where they will have better visibility.
The https://ivmmeta.com/ and https://c19ivermectin.com/ websites are from the same people. Can someone tell me why? And why are they hiding behind anonymity? Are the websites genuine or fake?
The websites are as legit as the source material. The developers have no reason to take credit for their amazing work because it would give people a target to go after as a distraction. The work speaks for itself and there's not one thing that I've found in six months of pouring over every detail of these sites that suggests they are anything but a life-saving gift that's being ignored by every three-letter agency bureaucrat in the country. It's okay to question, but you should also be open-minded to the information that's easy to verify and impossible for an honest person to ignore.
My concern over the website is compounded by their methodology - they didn't follow the gold standard Cochrane method for meta-analyses, and then put a weak defence up for not doing it right. So their results are highly likely flawed Reputable scientists will follow the gold standard methodology to ensure their results are not flawed and publish their articles in scientific journals where their work can reviewed for quality and corrected based on feedback. Also, others have done similar analyses and published their results in journals, so why hide behind an anonymous website? That makes me cautious about this website and I'd really like to be sure it's not some shady organisation trying to make gullible people believe in useless medicine.
Those Qs are fine but it’s gotten to the point that a child could look at the results with no statistical analysis whatsoever and know that there was an obvious pattern in favor of IVM. The results are 100% positive in every kind of study and in real world at the doctor level, clinic level, city level, and country level outcomes. The burden of proof has shifted. Do you have any credible evidence that IVM doesn’t work? Anything to counter the mountain of (imperfect) evidence that says that it does work? Even a single example of a time where IVM w results were worse than average with a reasonable sample size?
Some of the studies themselves point to no effect...
Meta-analyses are not immune to garbage-in garbage-out
Still doesn't answer the question who is really behind the website. Which was my question.
Which studies would you say point to "no effect"? Furthermore, is your hypothesis that all 39 trials (22 peer-reviewed so far) comparing IVM to a control group are garbage? Even if you knocked out 80% of the trials you'd still have enough power to confidently conclude that IVM is having a positive effect on hospitalization and death rate. What number of successful trials would it take before you'd change your mind independently (i.e., without an authority figure telling you to change your mind)? I guess what I'm missing is that for this evidence to be wrong, it would require a massive worldwide conspiracy of unaffiliated researchers who really have little to gain and a lot to lose if they are promoting an ineffective treatment. That's possible, but it seems far more likely that IVM is a useful treatment. In fact, that's exactly what doctors around the world are finding in real-world use.
The vast majority of the studies have confidence intervals that crosses 1...
You do know what that means right?
And just 1 high quality randomised controlled trial per treatment stage could be sufficient evidence (personally I'd also want to see some dose ranging studies)
I have no problem with experts telling me what to think, as long as they're qualified. We can't say the same about the ivermectin website's "experts" because they are hiding behind anonymity.
Let me repeat what I said earlier - meta-analyses of garbage studies will give you garbage results. The fact that the website owners didn't exclude all the garbage studies is a massive red flag. At these very least, they should have done sensitivity analyses focusing on the high quality studies.
So, that website and its content are dodgy
[-] machinelearny | 2 points
You must have no notion of probability if you really think that.
The "slogan" of garbage in garbage out is something coined by the people against any early treatment and has no statistical backing.
Statistically, if you take 100 noisy signals together you get a clearer signal.
If with Garbage-In-Garbage-Out you mean that the studies were flawed to the point of being completely meaningless, then please provide the evidence for your statement. If you are making a statistical statement, you are talking rubbish.
[-] cyberpimp2 | 1 points
Ivermectin is just another HCQ or bleach. People bending the data to suit their narrative. It’s not a miracle drug.
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[removed]
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[removed]
[-] Aggravating-Bird7015 | 1 points
Ivermectin does all those wonderful things but governments would not want to use it. Why is that? Is that because governments don't want the same things as regular people and doctors? Government want us to believe that they are on the same side in this whole Covid situation but in reality they are not. All their anti Covid measures are rediculous and they will not use what solves the problem. May be because the Problem is their goal. How many times we heard the worries of those who in power that there are way too many people on this planet? Well this is the solution: 1. Get rid of elderly which they see as a burden to budgets 2. Destroy the economy what will create unfavorable environment to start a family and have children 3. Lock down everyone in their houses so you won't be able to get together and demand your rights. Justify everything with Covid, and there you go, do what you want. No mask, visit your friends - pay the penalty. OMG this is so much better scam than 9/11.
[-] Terroir777 | 1 points
Ivmmeta.com
[-] QueenOfWands2 | 6 points | Feb 09 2021 18:56:48
/r/gettingIvermectin/ -- banned (no moderator)
permalink