See, thing is, most of the studies that supported the idea that there is a large benefit for ivermectin appear to be either fraudulent or so poorly conducted that they might as well be fakepic.twitter.com/OQvRFR38tC
-
Show this thread
-
On the other hand, the only large, well conducted trials seem to find either no benefit or at best quite a modest one
2 replies 4 retweets 119 likesShow this thread -
Indeed, if you remove just two trials from your analysis - Elgazzar and Niaee - there is not a single RCT that has found a benefit for mortality, and on aggregate the result is pretty solidly

5 replies 5 retweets 137 likesShow this thread -
What then separates ivermectin from other repurposed drugs? Popularity?pic.twitter.com/aKSrYM3CfG
4 replies 4 retweets 80 likesShow this thread -
Anyway, this doesn't mean that we should stop the ongoing large trials into ivermectin, but I do think it's an interesting point worth considering. Take away the fraud, rewind to the actual evidence, and what remains?
11 replies 8 retweets 148 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
In terms of trials that are well-designed, non-fraudulent, powered enough to show important outcomes, peer reviewed and published? Vallejos and Mahmud.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @EdoajoEric @GidMK
Vallejos N= around 250 per arm if I remember correctly, showed a 34% reduction in hospitalization that didnt reach statistical significance with 0.2mg/kg-ish x 2 doses. Mahmud N=250 per arm fixed 12mg ivm dose+doxy showed 50% less deterioration which was statistically significant
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @EdoajoEric
Also Mohan, showing no stat sig, but benefits for placebo at day 3/10 and benefit for ivm at day 5. In Vallejos, there was a 34% reduction in hospitalization but a 33% increase in mechanical ventilation in the ivm group (both non-sig)
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Yes I would not consider Vallejos a favorable ivm trial. I'm just pointing it out as one of the two trials that fits the criteria of large enough to show what we want to see, very well designed, peer reviewed, published.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EdoajoEric
Fair point. I would say that I think if you ignore the fraud that there are now more pretty reasonably null trials for ivermectin than for most stuff we use - usually the issue is a lack of studies, not that studies largely fail to find a benefit
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And that could obvs change, and we could certainly find a benefit! But ignoring the last 12 months, and excluding the fraud, I do wonder how people might view ivm based only on the actual evidence at hand. Would use be so widespread without Elgazzar and Niaee?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.