All things CoronaVirus

[wgdsr]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Here is the latest: make of it what you will.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362

hah. saw that and posted it. looks like ivermectin reduces death by ~70%, we gotta get that out there!!!

[wgdsr]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

I'd love to read the studies where ivermectin was effective at reducing or treating COVID in actual people, not just a lab environment.

"low or very low certainty" is also not necessarily the vernacular for statistical analysis.

Small studies can be extremely noteworthy at just few dozen participants. A lot of factors involved.

i googled "ivermectin study effective".
here are the first 3 links:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... 20evidence).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362
you can likely find more info in further links? and as an example, from the first link, they have i think 24 rcts in there that you might browse. sounds like a lot of work, but have at it.

in real news, anyone hear whether pfizer therapeutic has been hitting the shelves? access to peeps u know?

I wonder why Ivermectin hasn’t been green lit as the go to therapeutic?

no large rcts. it's obvious.

[wgdsr]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Masks don’t stop the spread of germs. We all know that now.

instinct would tell us that in the 1st place.

[Bart]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Here is the latest: make of it what you will.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362

hah. saw that and posted it. looks like ivermectin reduces death by ~70%, we gotta get that out there!!!

Nope. Was not what study was set to measure. Can’t go back in snd cherry pick post hoc analysis. Death in this instance would be way underpowered.

[wgdsr]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Here is the latest: make of it what you will.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362

hah. saw that and posted it. looks like ivermectin reduces death by ~70%, we gotta get that out there!!!

Nope. Was not what study was set to measure. Can’t go back in snd cherry pick post hoc analysis. Death in this instance would be way underpowered.

damn.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Masks don’t stop the spread of germs. We all know that now.

instinct would tell us that in the 1st place.

I wonder when the first mask was donned to reduce the spread of germs? Has probably been nonsense since that time.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/ar ... 20-00423-4

Dumbasses

[wgdsr]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Masks don’t stop the spread of germs. We all know that now.

instinct would tell us that in the 1st place.

I wonder when the first mask was donned to reduce the spread of germs? Has probably been nonsense since that time.

seriously. it's amazing we didn't mandate it straight away.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Masks don’t stop the spread of germs. We all know that now.

instinct would tell us that in the 1st place.

I wonder when the first mask was donned to reduce the spread of germs? Has probably been nonsense since that time.

seriously. it's amazing we didn't mandate it straight away.

Well, I wasn’t waiting on “the government” to tell me what to do. Were you?

[wgdsr]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Masks don’t stop the spread of germs. We all know that now.

instinct would tell us that in the 1st place.

I wonder when the first mask was donned to reduce the spread of germs? Has probably been nonsense since that time.

seriously. it's amazing we didn't mandate it straight away.

Well, I wasn’t waiting on “the government” to tell me what to do. Were you?

well, not back then. it's only 2022. a lot can change in a few years. plus, it's a pandemic.

[NattyBohChamps04]

i googled "ivermectin study effective".
here are the first 3 links:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... 20evidence).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362
you can likely find more info in further links? and as an example, from the first link, they have i think 24 rcts in there that you might browse. sounds like a lot of work, but have at it.

in real news, anyone hear whether pfizer therapeutic has been hitting the shelves? access to peeps u know?

Thanks for the rando studies I guess?

Would you look at that. Both "effective" and "low certainty" get used in some of them! (granted they're not quantified since we're being pedantic)

This was an interesting result to read for one of them:

"In this randomized clinical trial of early ivermectin treatment for adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities, we found no evidence that ivermectin was efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease. Our findings are consistent with the results of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial,17 which found that ivermectin was ineffective in reducing the risk of hospitalization."




I'm sure we'll eventually have a few studies that say ivermectin is a go. Hopefully we can find something that is effective at preventing and/or treating COVID-19 in the meantime.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Masks don’t stop the spread of germs. We all know that now.

instinct would tell us that in the 1st place.

I wonder when the first mask was donned to reduce the spread of germs? Has probably been nonsense since that time.

seriously. it's amazing we didn't mandate it straight away.

Well, I wasn’t waiting on “the government” to tell me what to do. Were you?

well, not back then. it's only 2022. a lot can change in a few years. plus, it's a pandemic.

I know what you mean.

[Typical Lax Dad]

i googled "ivermectin study effective".
here are the first 3 links:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... 20evidence).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362
you can likely find more info in further links? and as an example, from the first link, they have i think 24 rcts in there that you might browse. sounds like a lot of work, but have at it.

in real news, anyone hear whether pfizer therapeutic has been hitting the shelves? access to peeps u know?

Thanks for the rando studies I guess?

Would you look at that. Both "effective" and "low certainty" get used in some of them! (granted they're not quantified since we're being pedantic)

This was an interesting result to read for one of them:

"In this randomized clinical trial of early ivermectin treatment for adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities, we found no evidence that ivermectin was efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease. Our findings are consistent with the results of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial,17 which found that ivermectin was ineffective in reducing the risk of hospitalization."




I'm sure we'll eventually have a few studies that say ivermectin is a go. Hopefully we can find something that is effective at preventing and/or treating COVID-19 in the meantime.

Sounds like my sister that went to 4 eye doctors before hearing what she wanted to hear….a year later she ended up having surgery after wasting 2 years looking to hear what she wanted to hear.

[NattyBohChamps04]

effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

Does the large scale, peer-reviewed rct on masks count?

[NattyBohChamps04]

Sounds like my sister that went to 4 eye doctors before hearing what she wanted to hear….a year later she ended up having surgery after wasting 2 years looking to hear what she wanted to hear.

There's always that 5th dentist for independent thinkers who know better than the rest of us.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Sounds like my sister that went to 4 eye doctors before hearing what she wanted to hear….a year later she ended up having surgery after wasting 2 years looking to hear what she wanted to hear.

There's always that 5th dentist for independent thinkers who know better than the rest of us.

I asked her what did the next one say? She started laughing.

[Peter Brown]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Masks don’t stop the spread of germs. We all know that now.

instinct would tell us that in the 1st place.

I wonder when the first mask was donned to reduce the spread of germs? Has probably been nonsense since that time.

seriously. it's amazing we didn't mandate it straight away.

Well, I wasn’t waiting on “the government” to tell me what to do. Were you?

well, not back then. it's only 2022. a lot can change in a few years. plus, it's a pandemic.

I know what you mean.

What’s weird about the Covid virus is somehow media and other experts (some even here!) knew the virus would avoid mass gatherings for the protests in the summer of 2020, but the same experts knew the virus would go after the Sturgis motorcycle rally in South Dakota. Bizarre!

And don’t get me started how Covid knows to aim at any restaurant goer when he walks to his table, but once seated, the virus disappears.

I’m with you guys!

F8B29A93-6FF8-4525-941F-95BB098FB072.png (41.24 KiB) Viewed 505 times

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://wset.com/news/coronavirus/iverm ... treatments

Heads are going to explode if the find a positive outcome.

Not really. It would be one positive outcome and a lot of ineffective outcomes. Which would just mean more studies are needed.

If it's yet another study showing it's not effective in the real world, will you accept it?

if your standard is "effective", there have been plenty of both. any (all?) rcts have been small, not noteworthy. so "low or very low certainty". effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

i suspect this one won't be any different. so we'll accept it for what it is. maybe merck found some more pills to send out to principle.

Masks don’t stop the spread of germs. We all know that now.

instinct would tell us that in the 1st place.

I wonder when the first mask was donned to reduce the spread of germs? Has probably been nonsense since that time.

seriously. it's amazing we didn't mandate it straight away.

Well, I wasn’t waiting on “the government” to tell me what to do. Were you?

well, not back then. it's only 2022. a lot can change in a few years. plus, it's a pandemic.

I know what you mean.

What’s weird about the Covid virus is somehow media and other experts (some even here!) knew the virus would avoid mass gatherings for the protests in the summer of 2020, but the same experts knew the virus would go after the Sturgis motorcycle rally in South Dakota. Bizarre!

And don’t get me started how Covid knows to aim at any restaurant goer when he walks to his table, but once seated, the virus disappears.

I’m with you guys!


F8B29A93-6FF8-4525-941F-95BB098FB072.png

It’s racist.

[wgdsr]

effective or not isn't the vernacular. and any other non rcts don't really count unless it's masks.

Does the large scale, peer-reviewed rct on masks count?

nice, you found it. peer reviewed where?

[wgdsr]

i googled "ivermectin study effective".
here are the first 3 links:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... 20evidence).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2789362
you can likely find more info in further links? and as an example, from the first link, they have i think 24 rcts in there that you might browse. sounds like a lot of work, but have at it.

in real news, anyone hear whether pfizer therapeutic has been hitting the shelves? access to peeps u know?

Thanks for the rando studies I guess?

Would you look at that. Both "effective" and "low certainty" get used in some of them! (granted they're not quantified since we're being pedantic)

This was an interesting result to read for one of them:

"In this randomized clinical trial of early ivermectin treatment for adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities, we found no evidence that ivermectin was efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease. Our findings are consistent with the results of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial,17 which found that ivermectin was ineffective in reducing the risk of hospitalization."

I'm sure we'll eventually have a few studies that say ivermectin is a go. Hopefully we can find something that is effective at preventing and/or treating COVID-19 in the meantime.

not so weird seeing as how i used the word you wanted via google?

i'm not trying to be pedantic. as an example, that ivercore study never used that word, it was "had no significant effect". and btb, part of that is because their initial calculations of hospitalizations the study would see was off.
because? it can be argued it was underpowered. and with young people. and other reasons. who says so? the ivercore study does.
and what was that ineffective actual number? a reduction of 35% in hospitalizations.

so it sounds like you are in agreement with me. we need those higher powered trials stat. in the meantime, agree i hope we can find something in the meantime.