re: Ivermectin did work, new proof

And?

You’re acting as if Trump had all the answers in advance yet chose to go with big Pharma simply because of money or something? Yours is an insane position. Had Trump even known what to do, nobody did, he probably would have been impeached for that too.

The journal has an impact factor of 1.2, meaning its papers are cited an average of 1.2 times in the years after publication. To compare, Nature has an impact factor of 65 (average of 65 citations per paper). These authors couldn't get this into a prestigious journal. Why not? Fans of stigmatized knowledge will appeal to CT's, of course.

I don't endorse everything that happened, but telling people get vaccinated and not use ivermectin for prophylaxis and especially not to use animal-grade ivermectin in 2021 was A-Ok.

quote:

---

but telling people get vaccinated and not use ivermectin for prophylaxis

---

What was wrong with getting vaccinated and still using ivermectin?

quote:

---

Ivermectin did work

---

We cannot conclude that based on this paper.

quote:

---

New peer-review study

---

Cureus is not a peer-reviewed journal.

quote:

---

what we already knew....

---

If you are talking about knowing that we have no accurate studies showing efficacy of ivermectin against COVID-19 mortality or severe disease, you're correct.


A few notes:

1. This is an ecological study, not an RCT. Ecological studies often suffer from a particular fallacy that seems to exist here - assuming trends in a population hold for individuals in the population. They are usually considered a first-pass and not a definitive explanation of anything in epidemiology.

2. How they track their exposure is silly. They are using a government program that distributed care packages only to those who tested positive for Covid-19, and did not report any adherence measurements. So there is no way to know how many individuals who were given these care packages containing ivermectin actually took them, for how long, how that varied by state, and how that may have effected the outcome.

3. Much like their previously (trash) "paper" from Brazil, these care packages also contained azithromycin and acetaminophen. So there is no way to know if ivermectin is the cause of the outcome reduction, or these other medications, or some combination of them working together, or none of them.

4. The exposure timeline is misleading. They are looking at a program from July-Aug 2020, but ivermectin was widely available in Peru starting in May 2020 (as acknowledged by the authors). So why wait until July to start their study? Simple answer: if they did a true timeline, their results would fall apart.

5. Their outcome is absurd. They are looking at the drop in excess deaths from each state's individual peak since 3/1/2020 after which the 7-day rolling average reached the maximum, for 30 days. This means every state is evaluated on a different timeline, despite their exposure (the MOT program) having a set and defined start/stop date. For example, Lima (the one state that supports their conclusions), had their excess deaths by this metric in June of 2020 and would have had the drop measured by July 1, 2020 - BEFORE THE EXPOSURE HAD ANY CHANCE TO BE IMPLEMENTED. Also - minor fluctuations in the rate could have thrown their numbers wildly askew, since they're looking at such a small slice of time.

6. They also did a really weird way of calculating baseline excess deaths. They used Jan-Feb in 2020 as their baseline, just 2 months in the winter. Did they not want to account for seasonality in death rates, or did doing that ruin their results? Most likely the latter, as any real peer-review effort would have made them correct this absurd 'baseline'.

7. Additionally, they try to claim that increased distribution of ivermectin in Lima led to a decrease in mortality at that time. However, their own graphs show other states decreasing at the same time, regardless of changes in availability of ivermectin. They are taking an external effect (wave trough) and assigning it to a specific cause (ivermectin). This is incorrect.

8. Confounders - where are they? Even their age confounder is just a dichotomization of +/- 60. But we know that Covid-19 mortality risk increases the more you age, and it's not a flat cut-off at 60 (e.g. a population with a median age of 77 over 60 would expect many more deaths from Covid-19 than a population with a median age of 62). Why not adjust for age groups in all states in order to fix that - it's a very easy tweak to the analysis and of course they had the data. One has to assume that this adjustment wiped out their pre-formed conclusions.

9. Peru has a population of >30M. Based on their references they only distributed a few thousand packages of their exposure. There is no way that this tiny program was a driver of decreasing excess mortality when you account for other, more logical factors.

10. Thus, based on their own references, ivermectin was MORE widely used in Peru before their program began. So why would you ever claim that this program was a driver of mortality decreases?

The answer for why you'd claim that ivermectin was effective when this study demonstrates that you have no idea whether or not it was is because you're paid by Big Pharma to do so. These authors have a history of being compensated for precisely these types of lies - they tried the same thing in Brazil last year, and other places before that.

These are not comprehensive, just what popped out as issues on an initial read of this very flawed ecological study.

tl;dr This study is trash, if you believe that it shows anything you don't understand how we evaluate efficacy and you should stop taking horse paste.

Most of the so called confirming studies to assess the usefullness of Ivermectin purposely gave the drug too late (after 5 days of symptoms) so as not to show it's effectiveness.

Most of the anti ivermectin morons lapped this up as evidence that it did not work.

quote:

---

telling people get vaccinated and not use ivermectin for prophylaxis and especially not to use animal-grade ivermectin in 2021 was A-Ok.

---

Please outline the difference between a 3mg Ivermectin tablet and a 3mg dose of the equine formulation.

quote:

---

That would've been ok,

---

But it wasn’t ok. The medical community was hopelessly politicized and probably still is. You want us to trust them when they tell you which journals are credible but you’re admitting they did a lot of shady shite that you don’t think was ok.

Didn't have time to read any of the other posts, but I knew it worked as soon as the media came out against it like they did. It was completely obvious that they were carrying water on COVID, upping the fear porn and trying to stretch every ounce they could get out of it