direfrog | 22 points
Dr. Andrews Hill's Ivermectin meta-analysis, from University of Liverpool, England, supported by The Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator.[-] Haitchpeasauce | 7 points
I was not able to find a paper but I have left a comment on the video requesting one.
Overall I was pleased with the presentation, it gave a fair evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the RCT studies. His meta-analysis supports Dr Kory and ivmmeta.com
I have saved a screenshot of the last slide listing the researchers for when this video is inevitably taken down by YouTube. Perhaps we should grab the full video?
He mentions that more study results are going to be released in January which is exciting. However we all know there is enough evidence of clinical significance to act right now.
This is excellent. Moreover, FLCCC created a FAQ on IVM on their website. Now, have a closer look at the second part of the answer to the question "Shouldn’t we do a large, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to “prove” it works before adopting yet another treatment that will not work?":
Further, the WHO ACT Accelerator Program (https://www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator/about) sub-section focused on treatments for COVID-19 and headed by UNITAID has hired research consultants to identify and perform a global systematic review and meta-analysis of all active ivermectin trials in COVID-19. The consultant anticipates having results available from several additional, large clinical trials within the next 4 weeks, and predicts the accumulation of sufficient patient data in these trials to reach a conclusion and recommendation for or against use of ivermectin in COVID-19 during the month of January 2021. Preliminary analyses by the consultants were recently presented at an international research conference and all the available trial results at the time strongly supported the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19. If, based on the projected amount of trial data in the coming month, a recommendation for use of ivermectin in COVID-19 is issued by the WHO, any planned subsequent placebo-controlled trials would have to be terminated.
Now, compare this with the information provided on the first slide of Dr. Andrew Hill's presentation and his introduction.
Is this perhaps an early hint for the WHO decision in January recommending FOR use of IVM?
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 7 points
Are the wheels beginning to turn? Trying not to let my hopes get too high here.
This statement is pretty huge:
If, based on the projected amount of trial data in the coming month, a recommendation for use of ivermectin in COVID-19 is issued by the WHO, any planned subsequent placebo-controlled trials would have to be terminated.
So basically if the WHO acknowledges the data and recommends Ivermectin, they will require no further evidence. We will have official "sufficient evidence".
[-] passfailboat | 5 points
[-] Fullfacts23 | 1 points
Dr Norman Swan of Australia’s ABC has been regarded as the authoritative analyst/interviewer on covid having hosted The Health Report for years.
Here he is interviewing a co-discoverer of ivermectin’s ability to kill covid in vitro announced in April, Dr David Jans, on November 2.
This offers the option of a transcript.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
While it is good that he was interviewed by a well known figure at the ABC, it's pretty clear that Dr Swan approached the interview with strong skepticism and did nothing to help Prof Jans. Overall the interview did not go well and nothing has come of it since.
[-] stereomatch | 1 points
I somehow forgot to post this rough transcript I had made earlier - if nothing it is useful as a reference for the timestamps where things are mentioned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOAh7GtvcOs&t=629s Ivermectin meta-analysis by Dr. Andrew Hill Dec 27, 2020
Dr. Andrews Hill's Ivermectin meta-analysis, from University of Liverpool, England, supported by The Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator.
Presentation from MedinCell Workshop (16 December).
Spanish subtitles
More information: https://www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator
The Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator
rough transcript of the above video:
Dr Andrew Hill Dept of pharmacology at Univ Liverpool
meta-analysis of randomized
funded by Unitaid as part of WHO's program ..
only used randomized trials ..
looked at effect of dose response also ..
4:45 - viral clearance - nearly halved number of days
(is for PCR or for live virus ?) seems is for RT-PCR positive
(so means those wanting negative test for returning to work there ivermectin may help)
5:52 - 43% higher rates of clinical recovery
6:02 - 83% improvements in survival - 72% improvement in survival
6:58 - dose response effects
strongest effects in Egypt trial - ivermectin given for 5 days
8:21 - time to PCR negative - more fast in 5 day group (Egypt) vs. 1 day group (Iran)
looking at 11 randomized trial in 1456 patients
another 45 clinical trials in progress (7100 patients)
publication bias ? - where maybe trials which failed are not reporting ?
9:30 - some trials also which are open label - may be effect of investigator bias
56 trials 7100 patients
upcoming trials in next 6 weeks
500 patient study in Brazil 450 patient study in Columbia
another large study in Argentina
analysis on 1400+ may reach 3000+
and may begin to reach standards that were used for Remdesivir etc.
except there the effects were less
and with ivermectin are more
11:08 - Ivermectin treatment was associated with:
faster time to viral clearance
shorter duration of hospitalisation
43% higher rates of clinical recovery (95% C.I. 21-67%)
83% improvement in survival rates (95% C.I. 65-92%)
We need to agree on an optimized dose regime ..
If same trends are seen in upcoming studies
then this really will be a transformational treatment
TrialSite covered this video here:
https://trialsitenews.com/unitaid-part-of-the-world-health-organization-funding-ivermectin-research-targeting-covid-19-led-by-british-expert/ Unitaid, Part of the World Health Organization Funding Ivermectin Research Targeting COVID-19 led by British Expert
DEC 29, 2020
Dr Andrew Hill meta-analysis later because available as a pre-print:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/l0xdyv Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection (World 2020-01-19)
NOTE: for comparison can compare with the meta-analysis by others:
FLCCC's review paper (now completed peer review):
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.643369/pdf Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
https://www.c19ivermectin.com Ivermectin COVID-19 early treatment and prophylaxis studies
https://ivmmeta.com/ Ivermectin is effective for COVID-19: meta analysis of 28 studies Covid Analysis, November 26, 2020 (Version 8, December 28, 2020)
Evidently @CovidAnalysis twitter account was suspended by twitter:
https://ivmmeta.com/twitter.html
Dr. Tess Lawrie
The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd
https://www.e-bmc.co.uk/ 03-01-2021 URGENT Covid-19 information for health professionals and policymakers:
Ivermectin reduces the risk of death from COVID-19 - A rapid review and meta-analysis in support of the recommendation of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
Report:
https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4eeb59304c7f.filesusr.com/ugd/593c4f_8cb655bd21b1448ba6cf1f4c59f0d73d.pdf
author's profile:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Theresa_Lawrie
Dr Tess Lawrie made a video which was removed from YouTube, but has since been reinstated.
The video links and a rough transcript of the video is provided here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/kstuec/_/giil6lt
[-] DreadPyriteRoberts | 7 points | Dec 28 2020 09:16:29
Is there an associated paper? I'm excited to see another meta-analysis but a youtube video cannot be cited.
I googled but didn't find a paper.
permalink
[-] direfrog | 2 points | Dec 28 2020 20:32:11
Not published yet, they're talking about a meta analysis that is not finished.
permalink