I'm not a medical professional. I trust the analyses of the ICU doctors (Marik and colleagues) and Andrew Hill. This widely used drug (over 3 billion doses) has excellent safety profile; the potential benefit for preventing or mitigating COVID symptoms outweigh those risks.
-
-
Replying to @yodelodwho @JaiKanta22 and
This is the exact same argument for HCQ. It also serves as a great argument for garlic pills and every single drug that has an excellent safety profile. That's not a sufficient argument. Just come be agnostic with us.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ThugaManLaForge @yodelodwho and
It is not the “exact same” argument. You think HCQ is dangerous. And there aren’t 11 RCTs for garlic
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Bertie_222 @ThugaManLaForge and
Looking back at January when 11 RCTs wasn't quite enough. We've come so far and gotten nowhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GennyD76 @Bertie_222 and
You needed just one RCT. One that enrolled 2,000+, was done at 80+ institutions in the US, properly, blinded, randomized against supportive care and showed statistically significant drop in fatality at 29 days, with a p-value <0.01. That is what you needed.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davideyoungmd @GennyD76 and
Why does the number need to be so large? Doesn't the p-value account for the size of N? Seems like large numbers would only needed to confirm a weak signal. If p-value is consistently significant with low numbers, that says a lot.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Bertie_222 @GennyD76 and
Because the study has to be very clear as to what the value of Ivermectin is. Those small studies do not convince me. They do not convince a lot of people. You might not believe in the flaws but others can see lots of flaws.
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @davideyoungmd @Bertie_222 and
It is not belief in anything. These are front line doctors who have been dealing with deaths. They have seen ivermectin work - they organise some studies off their own back and get this not gold standard big pharma crap. Mexico study 300,000 thats lifes they are saving. Not good?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Roberts93998096 @Bertie_222 and
Front line physicians are not running randomized trials. Their patients may do well because of dexamethasone, not the ivermectin. Don't know without a trial. Unless it is a miracle drug, where everyone gets cured overnight. If that is the case, why all the deaths in India?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @davideyoungmd @Roberts93998096 and
Physicians, like anyone else can be overcome with bias. As a physician myself, I see others do that all the time, for other disease. If Ivermectin was a miracle drug, we all would be using it. If it has moderate benefit, then you need the randomized clinical trial.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Here's the thing, though. Prior plausibility based on basic science is not good for this drug. The concentrations in vitro needed to produce the antiviral effects described are many times what can be achieved in the plasma with even high doses. I don't see how this drug works.
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.