https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118858809#Comment_118858809
We have many conflicting peer reviewed papers when it comes to Ivermectin in relation to covid. I don't know enough about research and drug trials to understand which are true. Such conflicting papers over something so important is very concerning.
What I do notice is that the mainstream media only report on the papers that show Ivermectin as having no value in relation to covid.
The paper you linked to was published yesterday in the New England Journal (I don’t think it is peer reviewed yet) shows Ivermectin as not working. This is been widely reported in the mainstream media already. For example - https://www.theage.com.au/national/major-study-confirms-ivermectin-useless-against-covid-19-20220330-p5a9bp.html
I’d expect many more reports on this paper in the mainstream media in the coming days.
But this peer reviewed paper published on the 15th January that shows Ivermectin as working against covid got no mainstream media reports that I am aware of - https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching
Such conflicting papers to me is very confusing. And just to add to the confusion here is an article picking holes in the Together Trial that was used for the paper you linked to that’s published in the New England Journal since yesterday.
https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/what-went-wrong-with-the-together?s=r
Personally I remain open minded to Ivermectin but in no way have the expertise or knowledge to make a judgement. Either way this episode has made me trust the mainstream media less.
The Ivermectin discussion
Comments
-
-
I do not know the answer as I do not have the background to know, but what is in it for Cureus to keep a paper making "false claims" on its website? Surely people would have notified them by now saying the paper is making false claims and they would have removed it or redact it as it would be bad for their reputation to have such a paper on their website.
So are the issues raised in this piece about the Together Trail not valid, without merit?
0 -
-
See link no.3 below:
Ivermectin: the largest randomized, double-blind trial yet conducted, with early treatment, indicates there is no difference compared with placebo. It doesn't work. Period.
just published @NEJM
7 -
-
Advertisement
-
Some of the problems discovered with the Ivermectin part of the Together trial are highlighted in the following
The main difference for me is the deaths calculations for both arms of the trial.
It reports
- Control Group no. of deaths 21 as 3.1%
- Placebo Group no. of deaths 24 as 3.5%
But if those deaths were calculated against the number of people who adhered to the trial criteria to the end, then the numbers would come out as
- Control Group no. of deaths 21 as 3.4%
- Placebo Group no. of deaths 24 as 8.3% or 10.3% (depending on which number you used from the trial data, as it is unclear if the number was 228 or 288 that completed the placebo arm).
If the above is really what has happened then we are looking at a huge difference in outcome.
Hopefully there is some information forthcoming from those who ran the trial to properly explain these apparent discrepancies to everyone's satisfaction.
0 -
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
