Quote:
Originally Posted by curves2000
A very very recent example I have is with a Covid 19 critical care alliance team that has been putting some very good information and research into Covid 19 treatments and potential therapies. They can be found at https://covid19criticalcare.com/
Long story short, they are respected, mainstream ICU and critical care physicians with vast level's of research reports that have been published in respected medical journals. They have been talking about some extremely important benefits of a medicine called Ivermectin. In their experience and in a lot of studies around the world, this medicine has shown significant benefits for Covid patients.
The irony is that this medicine is FDA Approved, WHO list of world wide essential medication and won the Nobel prize for medicine in 2015.
They have been complaining in various interviews, forms and on social media about the level of censorship they have been experiencing with regards to their research. I am no expert in social media ethics or anything but these people aren't Podiatrist's selling snake oil and herbal teas as cure to Covid.
It's my understanding they recently presented to the National Institute of Health and other agencies regarding their research. They feel very confident that it will be made a standard of care for Covid 19 very very soon. They also have recent experience with something similar, being the some of the group of Dr's who were convinced that this was a steroid responsive disease. At the time everybody, including Trump was screaming "Ventilators!!!" There research and bedside experience showed that steroids are effective in this disease. |
Yeah, a cursory search explains what the issue is here: insufficient RCT data to back up claims of efficacy that show a statistical significance when IVM is administered in this way. Results in a petri dish are not the same as results in humans, and the study sizes don’t support the conclusions.
You won’t find large peer-reviewed RCTs (or large RCTs period, nevermind peer review) of IVM anywhere. I’ve found a
small, limited study of IVM where the sample size is only 112 people, and out of that, 4 in the control group died. That’s a footnote, not significance. Further, the study is a pre-print, and no peer-review has ever been conducted.
But I’ll tell you where I found a ton of chatter about Ivermectin being this amazing intervention for COVID-19... /r/conspiracy.
This #### is the next hydroxychloroquine. If large scale, double blinded RCTs conducted by an impartial group (ie: not the people you linked to, due to high bias) produced good results and passed peer review, then I would happily change my mind on this.
By the way, the NIH doesn’t support using IVM for treatment of COVID-19, only in a clinical trial setting:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...py/ivermectin/
Apparently when a drug is FDA approved, but you want to prescribe it in a new way that would require “administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans”, they kinda want to see your homework first before just approving it.