Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid miracle drug

Watch
This discussion is closed.
hotpud
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 day ago
#21
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 64 studies

https://ivmmeta.com/ivm-meta.pdf
Have you actually read any of the reports this "meta analysis" uses? I am really confused by it. Take the first study cited.

Choudury (RCT) https://ejmo.org/pdf/A%20Comparative...ents-16263.pdf

Choudury concludes: The difference between group A and group B recovery to negative PCR duration was not statistically significant and concludes Further study is required on a larger scale with an increase in Ivermectin treatment duration.

Yet the link you posted somehow concludes this study shows an 81% improvement. 81% isn't even written in the study cited other than the fact that 81% of test subjects were symptomatic.

Here is another study cited by the link you posted. I chose it at random.

Ravikirti https://journals.library.ualberta.ca...ew/32105/21639

This was quite a good study actually. Double blinded and randomised, but sadly only 115 participants were sampled. He concludes In conclusion of ivermectin in treatment regimen of mild to moderate COVID-19 patients could not be recommended with certainty based on our study results as it had shown only marginal benefit in successful discharge from the hospital with no other observed benefits.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of a wonder drug.

Yet the meta analysis you posted gives this 89% improvement rating. Did they misread this point the patients in the intervention arm and nine-tenth (89.5%) in the placebo arm were found to have achieved the same which was statistically indifferent

Reading these reports is quite interesting and just goes to show how poor much research is. Worse still is how badly much of this so-called evidence is misreported by biased outlets.

In conclusion I can only think that the author of your study has made it up on the hope that folks like yourself won't actually read the small print and just believe it. Certainly none of the figures I read in your meta-analysis tallied with any of the actual studies it cites.
Last edited by hotpud; 1 day ago
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 1 day ago
#22
(Original post by hotpud)
Have you actually read any of the reports this "meta analysis" uses? I am really confused by it. Take the first study cited.

Choudury (RCT) https://ejmo.org/pdf/A%20Comparative...ents-16263.pdf

Choudury concludes: The difference between group A and group B recovery to negative PCR duration was not statistically significant and concludes Further study is required on a larger scale with an increase in Ivermectin treatment duration.

Yet the link you posted somehow concludes this study shows an 81% improvement. 81% isn't even written in the study cited other than the fact that 81% of test subjects were symptomatic.

Here is another study cited by the link you posted. I chose it at random.

Ravikirti https://journals.library.ualberta.ca...ew/32105/21639

This was quite a good study actually. Double blinded and randomised, but sadly only 115 participants were sampled. He concludes In conclusion of ivermectin in treatment regimen of mild to moderate COVID-19 patients could not be recommended with certainty based on our study results as it had shown only marginal benefit in successful discharge from the hospital with no other observed benefits.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of a wonder drug.

Yet the meta analysis you posted gives this 89% improvement rating. Did they misread this point the patients in the intervention arm and nine-tenth (89.5%) in the placebo arm were found to have achieved the same which was statistically indifferent

Reading these reports is quite interesting and just goes to show how poor much research is. Worse still is how badly much of this so-called evidence is misreported by biased outlets.

In conclusion I can only think that the author of your study has made it up on the hope that folks like yourself won't actually read the small print and just believe it. Certainly none of the figures I read in your meta-analysis tallied with any of the actual studies it cites.
To be honest i doubt he's read them himself, outside of the summary, as opposed to just copying and pasting links
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling now you've started university?

I'm loving it! (42)
12.73%
I'm enjoying it but I'm still settling in (89)
26.97%
I'm a bit unsure (60)
18.18%
I'm finding things difficult (112)
33.94%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (27)
8.18%

Watched Threads

View All