The lengths that big science will go to

[Guest]

@AGRforever said:

@savannahskol said:

@Mike Olson said:

The lengths that big science will go to to keep ivermecting down!

Ivermectin didn't protect people from COVID-19, study shows

Source: CBS Marketwatch

Researchers testing repurposed drugs against Covid-19 found that ivermectin didn’t reduce hospital admissions, in the largest trial yet of the effect of the antiparasitic on the disease driving the pandemic. 

Ivermectin has received a lot of attention as a potential treatment for Covid-19 including from celebrities such as podcast host Joe Rogan. Most evidence has shown it to be ineffective against Covid-19 or has relied on data of poor quality, infectious-disease researchers said. Public-health authorities and researchers have for months said the drug hasn’t shown any benefit in treating the disease. Taking large doses of the drug is dangerous, the Food and Drug Administration has said. 

The latest trial, of nearly 1,400 Covid-19 patients at risk of severe disease, is the largest to show that those who received ivermectin as a treatment didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo. 

“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, one of the study’s lead researchers and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Mills on Friday plans to present the findings, which have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, at a public forum sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

There are currently 151 studies studying the efficacy of Ivermectin vs Covid-19.  102 peer-reviewed (ostensibly, a better quality study, all things equal). 
 
Here they are

Those of us in primary health care (front-lines, as it were) take in all available studies/info, and formulate a treatment plan, and modify treatments based on the peer-reviewed studies and the peer-supplied anecdotal advice.  

Your op is a nice bit of reportage, (thank you!) ,  but this is hardly the "final decision' on Ivermectin.  

Personally, I'm awaiting what I think is the gold-standard study, the U of Oxford PRINCIPLE study. 
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-rep...ives/96194

^^ but it's apparently on hold. Due to a Ivermectin (readily available)  "shortage".  LOL.  











Interesting, that this news is " ballyhooed" (ala  Mike's OP) before.... "Dr. Mills on Friday plans to present the findings, which have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, at a public forum sponsored by the National Institutes of Health."....  the medical journal (CAN'T FIND/REFERENCE THE JOURNAL!/NOT LISTED)     BUT, I'm sure it's a biggie, lol.  WAY bigger than the other 150  pending studies.  

Don't you suppose some of the positive Ivermectin results from 3rd world countries could be traced to people actually having parasites of some sort?  Kill the parasite and give the body extra ammunition to fight covid.

No, but nice thought. 

The more likely explanation is "secondary actions" of a drug/treatment.  

[Guest]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
ConclusionsTreatment
with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical
admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged
emergency department observation among outpatients with an early
diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater
Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424. opens in new tab.)