• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ivermectin no more effective than placebo for covid

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
83,420
Reaction score
57,782
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Journal of the American Medical Association


In this randomized clinical trial of early ivermectin treatment for adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities, we found no evidence that ivermectin was efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease. Our findings are consistent with the results of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial,17 which found that ivermectin was ineffective in reducing the risk of hospitalization.



I'm sure we'll see all sorts of apologies from the liars that shilled this bullshit right?
 
Who woulda thought?
 
OMG! Fake News!!! It saved Joe Rogan's life!!!

(That about sum it up?)
 
We don't argue with people from the top shelf.
 
Journal of the American Medical Association


In this randomized clinical trial of early ivermectin treatment for adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities, we found no evidence that ivermectin was efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease. Our findings are consistent with the results of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial,17 which found that ivermectin was ineffective in reducing the risk of hospitalization.



I'm sure we'll see all sorts of apologies from the liars that shilled this bullshit right?
"28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09)"

There is a trick that is commonly used to "prove" that a treatment does not work -- you can simply under-power the study. For example, you can make sure the N, the number of subjects, is too small. It looks like that might be true of this study -- 3 died in the ivermectin group, vs 10 in the control group. The probability that this happened by chance was very small, and the difference between groups was quite near statistical significance. If the study were repeated with more subjects, the difference might have been significant.

I suspect that many of the studies "proving" that ivermectin does not work used the same trick. Because most people (including medical doctors) know nothing about statistics, they are easily fooled by bogus research.
 
"28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09)"

There is a trick that is commonly used to "prove" that a treatment does not work -- you can simply under-power the study. For example, you can make sure the N, the number of subjects, is too small. It looks like that might be true of this study -- 3 died in the ivermectin group, vs 10 in the control group. The probability that this happened by chance was very small, and the difference between groups was quite near statistical significance. If the study were repeated with more subjects, the difference might have been significant.

I suspect that many of the studies "proving" that ivermectin does not work used the same trick. Because most people (including medical doctors) know nothing about statistics, they are easily fooled by bogus research.
So you want to debunk this study with "the sample size is too small". This study echos the finding of another study. They do mention that in the article. I guess that study's sample size might be too small for you to come out exactly the same as this one.
 
"28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09)"

There is a trick that is commonly used to "prove" that a treatment does not work -- you can simply under-power the study. For example, you can make sure the N, the number of subjects, is too small. It looks like that might be true of this study -- 3 died in the ivermectin group, vs 10 in the control group. The probability that this happened by chance was very small, and the difference between groups was quite near statistical significance. If the study were repeated with more subjects, the difference might have been significant.

I suspect that many of the studies "proving" that ivermectin does not work used the same trick. Because most people (including medical doctors) know nothing about statistics, they are easily fooled by bogus research.

Ivermectin doesn't work.
 
Lets face it. The rest of the world, where they don't care what Trump and the US anti Dems think, aren't massively using this comparitively cheap and available drug. Instead spending 100's of $millions more on more expensive treatments. Many of those other countries with medical experts just as good as in the US assessing that Inver doesn't work enough to use as a covid treatment. They don't have any political axe to grind. If it is available, cheap, and actually worked, it would be getting used everywhere.
 
Journal of the American Medical Association


In this randomized clinical trial of early ivermectin treatment for adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities, we found no evidence that ivermectin was efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease. Our findings are consistent with the results of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial,17 which found that ivermectin was ineffective in reducing the risk of hospitalization.



I'm sure we'll see all sorts of apologies from the liars that shilled this bullshit right?
Conspiracy nutters don't need any evidence, they're allergic to facts, reality and obviously vaccines. 🤡
 
Journal of the American Medical Association


In this randomized clinical trial of early ivermectin treatment for adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities, we found no evidence that ivermectin was efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease. Our findings are consistent with the results of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial,17 which found that ivermectin was ineffective in reducing the risk of hospitalization.



I'm sure we'll see all sorts of apologies from the liars that shilled this bullshit right?
Who didn't see this coming?
 
Lets face it. The rest of the world, where they don't care what Trump and the US anti Dems think, aren't massively using this comparitively cheap and available drug. Instead spending 100's of $millions more on more expensive treatments. Many of those other countries with medical experts just as good as in the US assessing that Inver doesn't work enough to use as a covid treatment. They don't have any political axe to grind. If it is available, cheap, and actually worked, it would be getting used everywhere.

The whole world is influenced by the WHO, and the WHO is under the control of Gates, who pushes vaccines.
 
Even if that were true, which it isn't, conservatives are among the least healthy Americans and have the most comorbidities.

More than half of all Americans have at least one co-morbidity. 42% have more than four!
 
"28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09)"

There is a trick that is commonly used to "prove" that a treatment does not work -- you can simply under-power the study. For example, you can make sure the N, the number of subjects, is too small. It looks like that might be true of this study -- 3 died in the ivermectin group, vs 10 in the control group. The probability that this happened by chance was very small, and the difference between groups was quite near statistical significance. If the study were repeated with more subjects, the difference might have been significant.

I suspect that many of the studies "proving" that ivermectin does not work used the same trick. Because most people (including medical doctors) know nothing about statistics, they are easily fooled by bogus research.
Oh, it was a conspiracy, because you know.... because you passed the statistics class.

And, by the way, you got vaccinated.
 
Back
Top Bottom