Share this comment
Sure, that's a good point. Like I mention above there are other reasons too. However first off the evidence for IVM as a prophylaxis is even weaker than that for a treatment. For example the Meta-Analysis mentioned in the article needs to be redone since some of the studies were retracted.
Moreover, the reason I mention dex is to be clear…
Sure, that's a good point. Like I mention above there are other reasons too. However first off the evidence for IVM as a prophylaxis is even weaker than that for a treatment. For example the Meta-Analysis mentioned in the article needs to be redone since some of the studies were retracted.
Moreover, the reason I mention dex is to be clear that cheap effective drugs can be approved. It is often suggested that IVM is kept under wraps because it so cheap, dex shows this is just not the case. You are essentially modying the argument saying it's also because dex is not a prohylactic while IVM is. The problem with this is that you can essentially always modify the argument by pointing out differences between IVM and dex, there are plenty after all. Like even if let's say it's proven tomorrow that IVM is not a prophylactic and we both agree the proof is legitimate, however that may happen, then you could just point to another difference. In essence if you assume there is a conspiracy then almost anything can be seen as evidence for it.
What would convicne me would be hard data to pack it up as conspiracy. So for example think back to the 60s when people were saying the goverment is lying about Vietnam, eventually the Pentagon papers were released and those internal documents by the goverment showed that to be true. Or since the patent for IVM ran out one of the big pharma companies could break ranks and sell IVM if that then proved to be effective that would make the idea that it's being kept under wraps more credible. Or if you show that Merck is making a scientific error, like wrongly interpreting a study, and consistently and I agree that it's an error then that would make the idea that it's being kept under wraps more credible.
You really should watch the Tess Lawrie episode. The meta-analysis does not need to be redone. She explains perfectly well how the data analysis functions when the flawed study is removed.
This is not a case of moving the goalposts. No one is saying that no cheap drugs will be approved. They're saying that a drug that will kneecap profitable pharmaceuticals will face obstacles in getting tested and recognized. Dex doesn't do that.
I don't claim there is a conspiracy. DarkHorse doesn't either. All we need is sufficiently noisy data on these things for the usual combinations of incompetence and perverse incentives to run their course.
I'll give it a watch. However it's standard scientific practice to redo a meta-analysis when a few studies are retracted or at least issue an official note with the study. After all if the evidence points to such a high efficacy rate removing a few studies should have little effect overall efficacy. It's like how lots of books have a list of corrections on the authors website that doesn't mean the book is wrong, though it can mean that too, it's a just standard practice.
Your point is that "They're saying that a drug that will kneecap profitable pharmaceuticals will face obstacles in getting tested and recognized" dex is a cheap drug yet it was recognized. Sure these two drug are very different and there are conflicts of interest. However as the example of dex shows cheap drugs can get recognised, IVM is also definitely facing obstacles. However considering that it's a novel virus and that the studies behind IVM are not very solid it makes sense, in short there are good reasons to be sceptical. The argument I see DarkHorse make is that these obstacles are unjustly there, so the studies show IVM is effective and they don't want to admit that. On top of that criticism of Big Pharma, similar to what you say about incompetence and perverse incentives. They actually do give reasons why IVM is not in their mind effective and looking at the studies I would have to agree with them. If you simply think it is and they don't want to recognise that, then you disagree with them and that's fine. But they also don't have to produce IVM if they don't think it's effective for covid, as the WHO, EMA, FDA agree with them. If you want them to produce it you need to present evidence that will convince them, not you. So if they want double blind randomized studies these need to be done.
My view is tht at this point we just don't know enough to consider it effective,as further studies come in we will learn more. As the facts come in I will decide based on them.
I’m just going to paste part of another comment I made on this thread: And more to the point, there is almost zero harm in prescribing it even if it doesn't work.
One thing to consider with all meta-analyses is that they they will always show a lower efficacy than the perfect protocol - unless the studies are fraudulent. No good study can demonstrate results better than what the drug can actually perform, while every individual study can have small or large issues with dosage or treatment protocol (for instance, IVM is likely to be far less effective on an empty stomach). There for an inconclusive signal like the one in the study you posted probably means that with the right protocol IVM will perform better than the MA suggests.
Now consider this: there to my knowledge have been no RCTs of puberty blockers in gender dysphoric adolescents. Yet we're handing them out like candy. Why the double standard of scrutiny?
Why does one of the safest drugs in history have to jump through hoops that new and experimental drugs and protocols don't have to? Why are we setting aside a potentially life-saving drug while we rush things like Aducanumab through approvals?
Why, when even Topal acknowledges that there is a signal in the IVM data, is he not pushing for better studies?
These things all stack up in one direction, and it isn't in favour of anti-IVM pundits.
How many more have to suffer/die in scientific parachute trials to make the Medical/Science community happy?
Oh wait, let's ask the NIH who are going to do JUST THAT that with the repurposed drug trial ACTIV-6 featuring amongst others: ivermectin and fluvoxamine. Half will receive sugar pills/placebo.
srsly?
At this late date in the pandemic we ''need' to do this to satisfy the psychological urges of the Medical Establishment. So skeptical/so awesome.
Let's see how many Chinese brunches get delivered to doctor's offices by PHRMA reps once Merck's (almost EUA'd) antinucleoside Molnupiravir gets unleashed.
Oh, right.. and when the (2 antiviral) blockbusters from Pfizer erupt from the Pipeline.
We'll see how quickly Western prescribers remember how to administer Early Treatment in infectious disease. The about face will leave us dizzy.
Search for ''pipeline drugs'' from Pfizer. We'll start with the one that is a 3CL-Pro/ 3ChymotrypsinLike Protease Inhibitor with immunomodulatory effects.. that also requires fatty foods for absorption... just like IVERMECTIN .. (which is also a 3CL-Pro).
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200916/Pfizers-anti-viral-3CL-protease-inhibitor-shows-antiviral-potential-against-SARS-CoV-2.aspx