Largest, highest quality study performed to date on ivermectin effectiveness. Very robust and exhaustive statistical analyses add to study quality

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivermectin-didnt-reduce-covid-19-hospitalizations-in-largest-trial-to-date-11647601200?st=0kq22nglflce799&reflink=article_imessage_share

This tells me all I need to know. Let me guess, the companies behind the "other drugs" stand to take in obscene profits.

Dr. Mills and his colleagues also are studying other drugs that could be repurposed to work against Covid-19. Such drugs could be useful because their side effects are well known and they may be cheaper to deploy in poor countries than drugs like Merck & Co. and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics LP's molnupiravir or Pfizer Inc.'s Paxlovid.

The celebratory starring of posts about medication found not to work is one of the more interesting facets of this board. Says a lot

Op, I'd be more interested to know what you have found that does work well vs what doesn't work.

The study hasn't been published and OP uses adjectives like "highest quality".

woodlees said:

---

Largest, highest quality study performed to date on ivermectin effectiveness. Very robust and exhaustive statistical analyses add to study quality

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivermectin-didnt-reduce-covid-19-hospitalizations-in-largest-trial-to-date-11647601200?st=0kq22nglflce799&reflink=article_imessage_share

---

Riiiiiggggghhhhhht.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

The celebratory starring of posts about medication found not to work is one of the more interesting facets of this board. Says a lot

---

Read the article, there is nothing definitive in it.

OP probably has a picture of the hockey stick graph on his wall lol.

Year of the Germaphobe said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

The celebratory starring of posts about medication found not to work is one of the more interesting facets of this board. Says a lot

---

Read the article, there is nothing definitive in it.

OP probably has a picture of the hockey stick graph on his wall lol.

---

Agree. Just meaning in general. if you find me starring posts that a long-used, cheap, widely available, extremely safe (at proper dosages) medication that is thought to potentially be useful for covid but the post is saying it was determined not to be, I need to go spend some time in self-reflection and re-evaluate just what kind of human I am. I would hope most reactions would be "well that's extremely unfortunate"

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Year of the Germaphobe said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

The celebratory starring of posts about medication found not to work is one of the more interesting facets of this board. Says a lot

---

Read the article, there is nothing definitive in it.

OP probably has a picture of the hockey stick graph on his wall lol.

---

Agree. Just meaning in general. if you find me starring posts that a long-used, cheap, widely available, extremely safe medication that is thought to potentially be useful for covid but the post is saying it was determined not to be, I need to go spend some time in self-reflection and re-evaluate just what kind of human I am. I would hope most reactions would be "well that's extremely unfortunate"

---

I agree. The fervor behind it is politically motivated lol, but also...creepy, with undertones of hatred.

Agree, which is crazy to see someone so fervent to see one side be wrong that they'd star something like this. I don't care which side it is. It would be wonderful if an existing, cheap, safe medication was found to be effective.

Ivermectin worked for me! Thats all that matters to me.

Nails

Additionally I'd like to point out that we are supposed to be just exiting a winter of death.

Per the current administration, using all data available, I should be dead.

This doesn't tell me one damned thing about why the vaccine (which does very little anymore) is pushed over ivermectin that allegedly does very little.

I never understood not trying ivermectin due to its very low side effects.

Jay Reimenschneider said:

---

This doesn't tell me one damned thing about why the vaccine (which does very little anymore) is pushed over ivermectin that allegedly does very little.

I never understood not trying ivermectin due to its very low side effects.

---

How can one possibly look at the data and suggest the vaccine "does very little".

There is nothing that could possibly be written that will change any minds on the subject one way or another. One of the many fascinating results of the pandemic.

ORAggieFan said:

---

Jay Reimenschneider said:

---

This doesn't tell me one damned thing about why the vaccine (which does very little anymore) is pushed over ivermectin that allegedly does very little.

I never understood not trying ivermectin due to its very low side effects.

---

How can one possibly look at the data and suggest the vaccine "does very little".

---

Upside down world.

PJYoung said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

Jay Reimenschneider said:

---

This doesn't tell me one damned thing about why the vaccine (which does very little anymore) is pushed over ivermectin that allegedly does very little.

I never understood not trying ivermectin due to its very low side effects.

---

How can one possibly look at the data and suggest the vaccine "does very little".

---

Upside down world.

---

I agree, masking children, shutting down businesses, and instilling fear into the public have created this upside down world.

Year of the Germaphobe said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

Jay Reimenschneider said:

---

This doesn't tell me one damned thing about why the vaccine (which does very little anymore) is pushed over ivermectin that allegedly does very little.

I never understood not trying ivermectin due to its very low side effects.

---

How can one possibly look at the data and suggest the vaccine "does very little".

---

Upside down world.

---

I agree, masking children, shutting down businesses, and instilling fear into the public have created this upside down world.

---

But if one uses any critical thinking at all, they would see that those things did very little, if anything at all, to help while the vaccine was a massive success. There is way too much all or nothing opinion, likely from the vocal minorities of both extremes.

ORAggieFan said:

---

Year of the Germaphobe said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

Jay Reimenschneider said:

---

This doesn't tell me one damned thing about why the vaccine (which does very little anymore) is pushed over ivermectin that allegedly does very little.

I never understood not trying ivermectin due to its very low side effects.

---

How can one possibly look at the data and suggest the vaccine "does very little".

---

Upside down world.

---

I agree, masking children, shutting down businesses, and instilling fear into the public have created this upside down world.

---

But if one uses any critical thinking at all, they would see that those things did very little, if anything at all, to help while the vaccine was a massive success. There is way too much all or nothing opinion, likely from the vocal minorities of both extremes.

---

100% agree. When you conduct analysis using bad data, you get bad results.

I saw too many arm chair statisticians try and get in on the analysis lol.

I'm good at picking out who wants to be a bully though, and I've noticed allot of fence sitters and people that populate the extreme left/right fall into the category of being a "bully." The range is sort of re-shuffling to clearly separate Judeo-Christian ideology, from an increasingly cancerous secular worldview.

ORAggieFan said:

---

Jay Reimenschneider said:

---

This doesn't tell me one damned thing about why the vaccine (which does very little anymore) is pushed over ivermectin that allegedly does very little.

I never understood not trying ivermectin due to its very low side effects.

---

How can one possibly look at the data and suggest the vaccine "does very little".

---

I still believe (naively perhaps) that the vaccines do take the edge off for the 'at risk' population. For all of the young and healthy folks, though, the risk was so small to start with that the ultimate risk reduction is practically negligible at the personal level (an "OMG outcome improvement of nearly 20x!!!" isn't nearly as impressive when explained as a 0.1% risk going down to 0.006%).

There is nothing naive about it. The vaccines success is obvious. If you don't think so just ask any doctor who dealt/deals with covid patients.

The problem is the vaccine got caught up with everything else. When someone spouts a bunch of BS it is natural to believe everything coming out of their mouth must be BS. After shutting down our businesses, closing our schools, and making us all wear masks, all of which were quite obviously ineffective from the beginning, it made a substantial portion of the population call BS on the vaccines.

agsalaska said:

---

There is nothing naive about it. The vaccines success is obvious. If you don't think so just ask any doctor who dealt/deals with covid patients.

The problem is the vaccine got caught up with everything else. When someone spouts a bunch of BS it is natural to believe everything coming out of their mouth must be BS. After shutting down our businesses, closing our schools, and making us all wear masks, all of which were quite obviously ineffective from the beginning, it made a substantial portion of the population call BS on the vaccines.

---

Agree completely. A big part of the problem was the bureaucracy being unable to keep up with the changing situation. For instance, the vaccines were very good preventing the spread of COVID when they were released. However, when delta and omicron came along the vaccines didn't help with that much at all. If a vaccine prevents the spread of a communicable disease, like it did against the original strain, then a mandate make sense. Once that changed, vaccination turned into a personal risk mitigation strategy and not a tool to stop the spread of disease. At that point mandates stopped making sense.

Both sides displayed a clear problem with flexible thinking, especially changing tactics as new information became available. Team Red when it came to treatments and Team Blue when it came to masks, mandates, and lockdowns.

A. It's not that the bureaucracies COULDN'T. They CHOSE not to update guidance to account for shifts that involved rolling back their overreach.

B. The "Both sides share blame" fallacy needs to be called out. The right was dominated by old people who lined up for the vax, politicians (Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, etc etc etc) who advocated heavily for vaccination, and considerate folks who played along with all of the attempts at spread mitigation.
Sure, there were crazy uncles who got amped up for Ivermectin and other prospective treatments in response to what they saw as leftist suppression, but that was hardly a representative element.
The left crushed the economy, people's freedom, kept family members separated, got folks kicked out of jobs, shut down events, set children back a year in their development, stole small businesses from their owners to the benefit of the largest corporations - even after the unknowns we're replaced by indications that they weren't acting logically.

C. There wasn't any point where mandates stopped making sense. They never did. Not in our constitutional republic. If a disease is bad enough, folks will act upon recommendations toward their own best interest. It's an incredible perspective really: approaching from a position that any entity beyond the individual should have the authority over their risk assessment / decision making.

Not trying to rehash 3 millenia of public health. All societies agree that a single person does not have the right to put others at risk. That applies if you're shooting fireworks in a neighborhood, digging a cesspit in your backyard, or getting a vaccine to prevent the spread of illness.

Also, your mileage may vary, but I still know a ton of people to this day that would take ivermectin over the vaccines. In rural Texas the number is big.

Finally, your first point shows the biggest problem in all of this. You just assume the "other side" is acting in bad faith. They're not mistaken; they're lying. They're not trying to make things better; they're being selfish and callous. Never attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by incompetence.

Im a big fan of Hanlon's Razor, but I've seen too much in the last two years and have been pushed beyond that edge. You may see things differently, but when the data mounts against them and they run out of valid excuses - I no longer care whether their personal fears are genuine, their faith is bad.

And there's a HUGE difference between quarantine of sick people (or stopping people who are otherwise violating a non-aggression principle) and saying "you exist, therefore you MUST (do as I decree)." It's clear when hearing some doctors speak that they think of people as a rancher does his herd of cattle - but that's a Pandora's Box perspective.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Year of the Germaphobe said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

The celebratory starring of posts about medication found not to work is one of the more interesting facets of this board. Says a lot

---

Read the article, there is nothing definitive in it.

OP probably has a picture of the hockey stick graph on his wall lol.

---

Agree. Just meaning in general. if you find me starring posts that a long-used, cheap, widely available, extremely safe (at proper dosages) medication that is thought to potentially be useful for covid but the post is saying it was determined not to be, I need to go spend some time in self-reflection and re-evaluate just what kind of human I am. I would hope most reactions would be "well that's extremely unfortunate"

---

See, the issue is that nothing happens in isolation. If a drug was legitimately a placebo, with no harm, and no benefit, then yeah, no big deal. The problem is that there are people that believe a placebo will save them, and will choose it over the vaccine. They'll even choose to take it for days while getting sicker and sicker, until they're about to die and then finally call an ambulance.

The decision to believe ivermectin works often means you also believe other stuff doesn't work, or doesn't work as well.

This is complete BS and stupid, Ivermectin is totally effective against parasites in large mammals.