Todose | 6 points
Im not qualified to evaluate this test butI ran across this study of Ivermectin. I am not qualified to analyses this sort of thing but it seems like its a pretty small study and the treatment was started late after initial infection. Let me know:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext
[-] bikes4paul | 3 points
I'm not qualified to analyze this trial either. It looked less positive than most but it was so tiny it's very hard to reach statistical significance.
WhiteBoard Doctor is qualified and performs an expert analysis of this study. He pointed out that it was more positive than I had originally thought. Here is a link to his review:
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
Generally best practice is to create a Link type post, which will validate whether the link has been shared before.
This is the Chaccour study. If you remember, this man has done much to cast doubt over the efficacy of Ivermectin for COVID-19, at least unless he was the one producing the study. After this much time all he has produced is an n=24 RCT, not a great contribution. 12 patients per arm is tiny, even in this sub which favours Ivermectin studies we can can agree this isn't very high.
It's no surprise then that viral clearance was found to not be "statistically significant". We can note however that even on a single dose (albeit fairly high dose at 400mcg/kg) of Ivermectin, this arm did have faster viral load clearance.
[-] fieldsofcoral | 6 points | Feb 18 2021 19:24:00
Yeah it's been posted before. The lead researcher Carlos Chaccour is the self-proclaimed ivermectin guru, then told everyone to not be so quick to try ivermectin until it's properly tested. He then took 6 months to do a study with n=24 and said more testing is needed. Bit of a phony/possibly doing the bidding of the pharma companies, though that's just speculation tbh.
permalink