It is going to take an innovation that currently does not exist to stop this pandemic.

Even then, it won't be universally accepted and the pandemic will continue.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Doctors and countries all around the world are using Ivermectin including next door in Mexico, in light of these vaccines not stopping the spread, countries all over the world are turning to ivermectin, yet in the US we continue to downplay the use of the medicine.

lets just allow big pharma to keep burying this in the sand, head down, insert under sand pit .. don't pick your head up, keep it under the sand. wait hold on, your picking your head up, let me throw some more sand on it

There are literally 1000 articles world wide on its effectiveness to treat covid yet in the US media keeps pumping out stories about horse pills, animal medicine, etc etc etc and saying how the drug is not effective. Just the fact that they tried to push this over as horse medicine tells you they (Big Pharma) dont want people to know how effective ivermectin is. Ivermectin is a human drug that has won world wide awards for its effectiveness in treating various disease.. yet its a horse pill, i give it to my dog, her cat eats ivermectin once a month, your goat needs ivermectin, the bull needs ivermectin

case in point ... the Methodist Hospital here in Houston (big pharma brother and sisters pretty much) drops/releases a lady Dr In Htown for effectively treating her patients with ivermectin and antibiotics and subsequently posting here success stories on her website ... she told them to go F off on tv, so proud of that lady doctor here in town/

Mexico city our neighbor has seen deaths plunge after sending people home with ivermectin and antibiotics... Im so glad my Dr prescribes these same treatments.. if anyone in my family gets sick i will send them straight to him so he can get them the medicine they need .

COVID deaths plunge after major world city introduces ivermectin | Citizens Journal | Citizens Journal

More Countries Now Using Ivermectin Against COVID And Seeing How Effective It Is : World : Christianity Daily (I guess Christian publications have seen enough of the other stories)

yes, I know you can post all the US stories trying to shoot the drug down, simply made up so that big pharma can get there share of the covid take

---

The doctor in questioned was merely suspended, she resigned of her own accord. And the reason she was suspended was for posting libelous claims about Houston Methodist online. She was overtly lying about the institution, saying things like they weren't treating unvaccinated patients, they were falsifying death certificates, etc.

---

No that's not what I heard… my Dr buddy who even works for them says she was probably correct ..

Anyway.. pick your side it doesn't matter…. Media is nothing but lie lie lie these days.. no truths

If a person is exhibiting symptoms of COVID, what are the doses of Ivermectin that are recommended?
I know I have seen them in the Covid thread, but that is now over 100 pages and I cannot find them.

My wife has been sick since last night. Might be allergies but want to be prepared just in case.

She started feeling bad yesterday afternoon. Doesn't feel really bad but is fatigued. Starting to think she has it. So she has not been able to go to her Dr.
She doesn't want to go to a Dr. in the box and all the drive through testing sites are closed today where we live.
Grown kids and spouses were here for a few days. Left Thursday. None of them are sick, nor am I.

I have been taking Ivermectin as a preventative since August. Maybe that has helped me.

Another retraction.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5

Norbert said:

---

Ivermectin doesn't make Pfizer or Merck any money that's why it's **** on by everyone. But these new just approved Paxlovid and Molnupiravir are the best new fight against Covid. Follow the money people

By the way if you google Ivermectin this is the first link that pops up. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

It's all a media/gov/tech concerted effort to mislead the American people.

---

Yep.

That link is pure propaganda. Wow.

My wife finally had enough energy to go get tested today and she tested positive. There is one really good Dr. in the box in San Antonio. She got a steroid shot and first dose of cough syrup plus other prescriptions we will pickup later. She is already set for the monoclonal infusion tomorrow.

So no IV for her. As for me, still no symptoms. But I do expect to get them and test positive in a few days. Which means good immunity for both of us in the future.

Been working pretty well for me. No complaints here.

Salute The Marines said:

---

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

But the vaccines are so good you shouldn't need this new drug. Shouldn't have bought any of it.

---

Unfortunately we have a lot of people that refuse vaccines in order to make political statements.

---

This has nothing to do with those populations and everything to do with the vaccines being crap for efficacy at this point.

Keep telling yourself these things in the mirror. That is the only place they are true, in your head.

Zobel said:

---

This is a long and very thorough review of the studies listed on ivmmeta.com.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted

It's very good, and very fair -- much more fair than I have been, which is a good critique of me.

It also has a surprising potential confounder explanation for Ivermectin success disparity, as well as some very insightful commentary on science, sociology, and politics - including speculating why the consternation exists over it, in particular the correlation between anti-vaccine beliefs and pro-ivermectin beliefs.

You really should read the whole thing - it's worth it - but if you're going to skip, when he says scroll down to the section called "The Analysis" do it, but read the rest.

Here's the final four bullet points along with the author's assigned confidence (this is a rationalist thing - you attempt to gauge your personal confidence in a belief, rather than live in a world of binaries - not a statistical number)

• Ivermectin doesn't reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let's say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence
• Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when honest and methodologically sound: 50% confidence
• Fraud and data processing errors are of similar magnitude to p-hacking and methodological problems in explaining bad studies (95% confidence interval for fraud: between >1% and 5% as important as methodological problems; 95% confidence interval for data processing errors: between 5% and 100% as important)
• Probably "Trust Science" is not the right way to reach proponents of pseudoscientific medicine: ???% confidence

---

Zobel,

Thanks for posting this and for all you do in trying to keep the discussions on Covid fact and medicine based.

A retired doctor friend is pro-ivermectin and keeps sending me articles and studies supporting its efficacies. A quick review of the review you linked does not include many or any of the studies he's forwarding. Could that mean that the reviewer himself was biased, either consciously or unconsciously, in his selection of studies to review?

He may have covered the studies and I'm just missing them. Here are some examples of what my doctor friend has forwarded:

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 - PubMed (nih.gov) (and the "Similar articles" linked at the end of that article.

Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial | medRxiv (the comments to the article seem to shred it, but I'm curious why it was omitted from the review you linked.)

The studies mentioned, but unfortunately not linked, in this article from the Epoch Times: More Good News on Ivermectin (theepochtimes.com). I believe that I've found at least some of the studies via my own searches, namely:

• Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PubMed (nih.gov)
• andrew_hill_ivermectin_slides_december_2020.pdf (swprs.org)

Some of those are included. I skimmed Kory's meta analysis and it covers many different end points and studies. In the clinical studies there's overlap (eg Mahmoud) in the table above.

Bryant's paper in the bottom link is a meta analysis as well, and includes the same group of studies in the OP - it is not itself an original study. It also included at least one study in its analysis now known to be fraudulent.

73 studies, 52 of them Peer Reviewed, overwhelmingly indicate Ivermectin efficacy for early treatment of Covid

https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fp

Claims that it is only effective for those suffering from Covid and worms are false. None of the studies controlled for worms. To quote the study's response to such claims:

... the greater benefit in high strongyloides prevalence regions is only seen with the small subset of 11 trials and is not seen with all trials, or after restriction to mortality results, or restriction to RCTs. Within the 11 trial sample, all trials except one in the low prevalence group have confounding due to treatment delay and/or low dosage, where a lower effect size is expected. The only remaining trial in the group is unpublished, has an unknown treatment delay (a significant percentage of patients may have been treated very late), has very high negative conflicts of interest, and the Gamma variant was most common, in addition to other issues.

[url=https://ivmmeta.com/#bbc][/url]

Zobel said:

---

Read the OP. It is directly referencing ivmeta's papers.

---

I read the article when you posted before. The author exercises some extreme selection bias in choosing which studies he keeps and which he discards. All studies have limitations. The author uses any study limitations to exclude certain studies which would otherwise disprove his "worm theory". Why not keep the 52 studies that were peer reviewed. I keep hearing on this forum that only "peer review" studies matter. Now, we discard peer review studies that have certain limitations the author deems worthy of exclusion. It is textbook selection bias.

Interesting. Can you provide links or citations to the peer reviewed studies that the author should have included but didn't?

I'm not trying to argue with you at all, but rather trying to get to the bottom of the issue which seems extraordinarily difficult to do.

Jabin said:

---

Interesting. Can you provide links or citations to the peer reviewed studies that the author should have included but didn't?

I'm not trying to argue with you at all, but rather trying to get to the bottom of the issue which seems extraordinarily difficult to do.

---

There were 73 non-retracted studies (52 which they claim were "peer reviewed"). To avoid selection bias, keep them all. The author of the paper cited by OP cherry-picked 11 of the 73 studies, with 3 in a high strongyloides prevalence group where a greater benefit is seen. This was used to draw strong conclusions about the mechanism of ivermectin efficacy. You have the list of the 73 non-retracted studies and the author of the paper you posted list the 11 he chose for his presentation.

"I was pretty uncomfortable with most of these studies myself, so I will err on the side of severity, and remove all studies that either I or Meyerowitz-Katz disliked." Again, every study has limitations. To remove studies because "I dislike them" introduces serious selection bias.

That is not to say his theory isn't interesting and possibly true. The authors of the Ivmmeta study directly address his hypothesis here:

https://ivmmeta.com/#strongyloides

That does not appear to be an accurate statement of the criteria used by the author of the article linked in the OP. From my reading, he appears to have reviewed all (or perhaps the top 30) studies and nixed those guilty of fraud, were methodologically unsound, committed serious statistical errors or had excessive red flags (I'm not sure what that means).

In other words, he did not ignore the other studies. Rather, he examined them deeply enough to determine that they were not worthy of even further investigation.

Inclusion criteria is a part of any meta analysis. Excluding studies for reasons like "this study is fraudulent and certainly never happened" or "this study has impossible numbers in the results" or "this study changed outcomes midway to produce a favorable result" is a good thing, not a bad one.

If you want to criticize the analysis done, you should do so on the basis of the exclusion criteria being used - that is to say, when a paper is excluded for a given reason, you should state why you think it should be included. Simply calling it selection bias is a waste of time.