[News] Upd: Canadian NHL Teams to require proof of vaccination to attend any arena events

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

And you continue to ignore a meta-analysis of several studies showing that it is not a dead end.

Nope, didn't ignore it at all - I posted about it.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Nope, didn't ignore it at all - I posted about it.

So, what are you saying? Lots of studies showing promise, large clinical studies are needed to prove it out one way or the other. Why is it you think I need to accept it is a dead end - it obviously isn't.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Just popped in here. I recalled seeing a scientific review from Alberta Health Services with respect to ivermectin earlier this year. Here’s a link if anyone is interested

https://www.albertahealthservices.ca...pid-review.pdf

Key findings and recommendations from the AHS doc

KEY FINDINGS
• The studies evaluating ivermectin treatment are not high enough quality to
properly decide if ivermectin is useful or not. Most studies did not clearly describe the effect of the other medications given to patients or what other factors might influence their findings (“confounding”), did not have an adequate comparator group to assess if there was a difference in patients given ivermectin, or were too small to be sure that any effect of ivermectin seen was real.
• With respect to ivermectin's ability to prevent infection with COVID-19, four low quality studies showed that ivermectin may reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection; however, there were several confounding factors and we don’t know what else the study participants were doing that might have influenced their risk of infection. More studies are needed to show if ivermectin can be used to prevent infection.
• With respect to ivermectin's ability to treat people with COVID-19, seven studies that had a control group (ie. a group of participants that did not receive ivermectin) reported the effect of ivermectin on death from COVID-19. Four showed that deaths from COVID-19 went down, while three showed that deaths from COVID-19 were not affected. All seven studies were small and were of low or very low quality, so we can’t be sure that their findings were real. More studies are needed to show if ivermectin can be used to treat COVID-19.
• The available data on ivermectin purchasing in Alberta doesn’t clearly show us if it is being used for purposes other than parasitic infections (ie. for COVID-19).

RECOMMENDATIONS
• At this time, ivermectin should not be prescribed or taken to prevent COVID-19
outside of a clinical trial, as we need to establish whether it is truly useful.
• At this time, ivermectin should not be prescribed or taken to treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial, as we need to establish whether it is truly useful.
• Scientists in Alberta should support clinical trials of ivermectin to help clarify whether ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 or not.

I wonder if this study is one of the main things that drove people’s interest

• Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit viral replication in vitro, but at concentrations that may be unattainable with human therapeutic doses. Vero cells (a non-human cell line) infected with SARS-CoV-2 and treated with 5 μmol/L ivermectin at 2 hours post-infection showed a 5000X reduction in viral replication compared to untreated controls. However, the 100% inhibitory concentrations of ivermectin needed in vitro are approximately 50-55X higher than the maximum plasma concentration of ivermectin after an oral dose of 12 mg in adults

[MissTeeks]

LSU becomes first SEC school to mandate vaccines to attend games.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1430198531629928458

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Key findings and recommendations from the AHS doc

All those recommendations fall in line with VilleN comments, if you just read what is being said and don't get out your anti-vax paint brush, he's not wrong.
He is hopeful that this could be another tool in the future, or leads to other advances. I believe part of scientific study is trial and error, if this turns out to be a placebo so be it but it may lead to other break throughs, which I believe would be good news.
Nobody on this topic is saying don't get a vaccine

[MRCboicgy]

You are not a horse or a cow
https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/14...243192839?s=19

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

All those recommendations fall in line with VilleN comments, if you just read what is being said and don't get out your anti-vax paint brush, he's not wrong.
He is hopeful that this could be another tool in the future, or leads to other advances. I believe part of scientific study is trial and error, if this turns out to be a placebo so be it but it may lead to other break throughs, which I believe would be good news.
Nobody on this topic is saying don't get a vaccine

They really don't. The recommendations don't make the studies sound promising at all. They say they were all low quality. Whereas the peer reviewed study I posted showed a lack of effectiveness.

[Reggie Dunlop]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1430222494166749185

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They really don't. The recommendations don't make the studies sound promising at all. They say they were all low quality. Whereas the peer reviewed study I posted showed a lack of effectiveness.

• At this time, ivermectin should not be prescribed or taken to prevent COVID-19
outside of a clinical trial, as we need to establish whether it is truly useful. VilleN said the exact same thing
• At this time, ivermectin should not be prescribed or taken to treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial, as we need to establish whether it is truly useful. VilleN said the exact same thing
• Scientists in Alberta should support clinical trials of ivermectin to help clarify whether ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 or not.
Seems reasonable

Low quality doesn't mean doesn't work, hopefully it will have positive effects and lead to further treatments, you are arguing with VilleN about him trying to be positive regarding further breakthroughs in the fight against Covid. Effectively saying hope is wrong

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They really don't. The recommendations don't make the studies sound promising at all. They say they were all low quality. Whereas the peer reviewed study I posted showed a lack of effectiveness.

So you'd suggest that they stop looking at ivermectin entirely then?

[Reggie Dunlop]

....and Edmonton..

https://twitter.com/user/status/1430217735741624320

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

You are not a horse or a cow
https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/14...243192839?s=19

https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-sup...e/drg-20064397

[photon]

Science-Based Medicine has multiple articles on the state of research on Ivermectin and also on the reviews

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ive...-prize-gambit/

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

• At this time, ivermectin should not be prescribed or taken to prevent COVID-19
outside of a clinical trial, as we need to establish whether it is truly useful. VilleN said the exact same thing
• At this time, ivermectin should not be prescribed or taken to treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial, as we need to establish whether it is truly useful. VilleN said the exact same thing
• Scientists in Alberta should support clinical trials of ivermectin to help clarify whether ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 or not.
Seems reasonable

Low quality doesn't mean doesn't work, hopefully it will have positive effects and lead to further treatments, you are arguing with VilleN about him trying to be positive regarding further breakthroughs in the fight against Covid. Effectively saying hope is wrong

He said "looks promising". It doesn't.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

So you'd suggest that they stop looking at ivermectin entirely then?

LOL. Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

What I'd rather is people quit touting it based on a few badly done studies and wait until something real happens with it.

and also perhaps there should be fewer attempts to rely on meta analysis which is flawed from the get go:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ive...meta-analyses/

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

You are not a horse or a cow
https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/14...243192839?s=19

Also the FDA tweeted this out https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinar...tended-animals

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He said "looks promising". It doesn't.

Actually the studies do show promise - and as a result should be studied further. Would it be your recommendation to abandon it?

Edit: Replying to above - So it is not a dead end then is it?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

All those recommendations fall in line with VilleN comments, if you just read what is being said and don't get out your anti-vax paint brush, he's not wrong.
He is hopeful that this could be another tool in the future, or leads to other advances. I believe part of scientific study is trial and error, if this turns out to be a placebo so be it but it may lead to other break throughs, which I believe would be good news.
Nobody on this topic is saying don't get a vaccine

Sure. I have no idea what brush you are talking about because it has nothing to do with me

If you review the document, I would expect you would pull out the correlation between encouraging and low quality data

Strength of Evidence
Overall, the evidence for this topic is of very low to low quality. As with other clinical topics on COVID-19, the research on ivermectin is opportunistic and hastily done, with limited planning to minimize sources of bias. The body of evidence is at high risk of bias due to confounding, as many studies investigated ivermectin as add-on therapy to a cocktail of medications intended to manage symptoms and limit viral replication. Small sample sizes, performance bias, short follow-up time, inappropriate study designs, further limit the usefulness of the available evidence on ivermectin. Further, the evidence is not consistent for any outcome of COVID-19 treatment (such as PCR positivity, symptom resolution, days in hospital, or mortality).

…

Due to concerns about the evidence quality, a formal critical appraisal of the identified meta-analyses and included primary literature was undertaken. The meta-analyses were judged to be of critically low quality (Lawrie, 2021); low quality (Hill et al., 2021), and moderate quality (Padhy et al., 2020) after AMSTAR-2 assessment (Shea et al., 2017). Comments arising from the appraisal process are included in Table 9 in the appendix. These findings suggest that the meta-analytic results may not present an accurate summary of the evidence. To mitigate these issues, the results from the primary studies included in each meta-analysis were extracted and narratively synthesized to assess the clinical effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19

There is enough information to piece together a common sense view of what is reasonably to be expected

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Actually the studies do show promise - and as a result should be studied further. Would it be your recommendation to abandon it?

The flawed studies showed promise. The better conducted and peer reviewed ones didn't. They can study all they want. Until they have actual results acceptable to a professional standard, there shouldn't be any fuss about them at all. Instead, the rubes are being sold another hydroxy.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ive...-prize-gambit/

However, as I’ve also discussed before (and will again in this post), there is no good evidence that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, although there are low quality studies and, yes, meta-analyses. Worse still for ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, the prior plausibility on the basis of basic science is low, because the in vitro cell culture studies that showed activity against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, required a much higher concentration of ivermectin than is achievable in the blood with standard (or even high) doses of the drug. So, as I have said repeatedly, it’s possible that ivermectin might have activity against COVID-19 in humans, but not very likely and, even if it does, it’s even less likely that it will be as efficacious as is being claimed.

[topfiverecords]

Do you guys study, research, debate and discuss this much for potential new drugs for other health issues people can be hospitalized for?