*finally* an interesting study about ivermectin and COVIDhttps://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989/htm …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @evolutionarypsy
I would be extremely skeptical of a study published by MDPI. The have a rather dubious history.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies …
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @shallit43 @evolutionarypsy
Just what I was thinking. I might have to get into the weeds of the details of protocol.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
And...I've already discovered a reason to be skeptical in the abstract: "There was no significant difference (p = 0.06) between Ct-values of the two groups before the regimen was started (day zero), indicating that subjects in both groups had similar viral loads." 1/
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
That's just BARELY not statistically significantly different. Now: "72 hours after the regimen started, ivermectin significantly increased the Ct-value from 15.13 ± 2.07 to 30.14 ± 6.22 (p < 0.001)." 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And: "Seventy-two hours after the regimen started, ivermectin significantly increased the Ct-value from 15.13 ± 2.07 to 30.14 ± 6.22 (p < 0.001). In comparison, the Ct-value for the control group increased from 14.20 ± 2.48 to 18.96 ± 3.26 (p < 0.001)" 3/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Remember, PCR is exponential. So a difference in Ct of 1 is a two-fold difference in viral load. It looks to me as though the ivermectin treated group started out with lower viral load, which just didn't quite reach statistical significance. 4/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Because PCR amplification is exponential, small differences in starting viral load can make big differences down the line. The result might be real (I suspect that it is not), but this problem with the clinical trial could potentially explain this result. 5/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
There's also the simple mechanistic question of whether one dose of any drug could have such a seemingly dramatic effect. Color me unimpressed by this study. It doesn't really show much of anything, at least not convincingly. 6/6
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I have to go into the weeds a bit more, as the p-values don't all seem to agree on a quick skim and I don't have time now. 7/7
-
-
Basically, I'm not sold. It would take a much better randomized, double blind trial. Rereading and searching the text, I don't see any mention that this is a double-blind trial. Then there's the issue of the control group. 8/8
2 replies 2 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.