No evidence suggests a causal link between Ivermectin recommendation and the decline of COVID-19 cases in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh

Health Feedback ^ | 10/12/2021 | Editor: Iria Carballo-Carbajal

[CatHerd]

If this is the one, it will not complete until May 31, 2022:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04703205

So, looks like we’ll have to keep checking on it.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

I have no Japanese either!

Looking at that NIH article its a study of other researcher's studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/8394824/bin/ciab591_fig1.jpg

What I do see is that out of 256 records regarding Ivermectin they kept 10 and excluded 246 of the records. How much Ivermectin was given? Did they have an effective dose or were the patients given amounts below an effective level? How long did they receive it?

Because of these questions I would probably try to find an actual study rather than an extrapolation from other peoples works. You can select your studies to support your expected conclusion and I do not think either of us is inclined to review the other 246 studies for content!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trial-sans-error-how-pharma-funded-research-cherry-picks-positive-results/

By Ben Goldacre on February 13, 2013

I think there is actually a lot of pressure to NOT find Ivermectin effective! See;

https://www.worldtribune.com/researcher-andrew-hills-conflict-a-40-million-gates-foundation-grant-vs-a-half-million-human-lives/

"On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.

Shortly before he published, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and one of the world’s leading medical research analysts, contacted Hill via Zoom and recorded the call (transcript below). Lawrie had learned of his new position and reached out to try to rectify the situation.

In a remarkable exchange, a transcript of which appears on pages 137 – 143 in Kennedy’s book, Hill admitted his manipulated study would likely delay the uptake of ivermectin in the UK and United States, but said he hoped his doing so would only set the lifesaving drug’s acceptance back by about “six weeks,” after which he was willing to give his support for its use"

[CatHerd]

Yes, that’s what a metal study is. A review and meta-analysis of published studies. Studies may be excluded for a number of reasons (size, mouse study, in vitro, methods). Two reasons given for excluding on the second sort were “no control group” and “sole outcome of no interest”.

If you want to see actual, individual studies, you can find them here:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=covid+ivermectin

I agree, no way would I be willing to go through all 243 studies!

My personal opinion: Ivermectin may be of some small benefit. After we got MABs, why bother with it? But now that the Biden administration (whoever they are) is yanking MABs ... gulp.

[CatHerd]

Actually, by going to the search link I posted, you can see several entries in the first half of the first page which should not be included. A proposal for a clinical trial, a letter to the editor, a proposal for study based on in vitro, etc. Not actual human clinical trials or even close. I would not be surprised to find 243 like that on PubMed!

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Thanks! I am not going to look further tonight. I recollect that when I see Ivermectin mentioned it is generally as part of a protocol. No, Regneron is no longer for the proles and peons apparently!