Posted on 02/18/2022 3:31:07 PM PST by Coronal
Malaysian researchers found that treatment with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin did not prevent patients with COVID-19 from becoming severely ill in a randomized clinical trial published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal on Friday.
The researchers said their findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.
The study enrolled 490 patients with mild to moderate illness at 20 hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia. Everyone received standard care; half the group also received ivermectin.
Severe disease developed in 21.6% of the patients given ivermectin and in 17.3% of those who received only standard care, the researchers said.They defined severe disease as requiring oxygen to help with breathing.
There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in rates of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, or death, according to the study.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
It has to be given within days of the onset of symptoms.
It won’t work very well, or all, for a person who is on a ventilator.
Reuters article hits my biggest pet peeve… reporting on a study without providing a link to the study.
nice of Rooters to publish this, but..
Reuters ‘Fact Check’ Shields Pfizer CEO, Fails to Disclose Reuters Chairman Is on Pfizer Board
I appreciate the extra info. I’m always up for learning more, learning better.
Ditto!
Good one!
And, other studies show its effectiveness at all stages, not just early. Unlike HCQ, which is not as effective in later stages (like it is, when given early).
I call serious BS on this alleged study.
Malaysia vs. USA:
Climate much less favorable for this type virus, than, say, the USA.
Younger, fitter population.
Much better mitigating population than USA. (Most Americans are too arrogant or bullheaded to recognize this.)
Low infection rate (VERY low prior to Delta) > lower virion levels being spread in general, esp. in public places > less severe infections.
Thanks for the rationalization. Of course Malaysia and the US are different.
Malaysia's mortality rate, which you did not contest, stands at 0.0975 %.
In contrast, the United States' mortality rate stands at 0.279%. Over almost twenty six months, the death rate in the US is less than one-third of one percent.
As to the infection fatality rate, also called the case fatality rate, that is efficacious when comparing two or more groups within a population, while the mortality or death rate calculates the actual effect in a given population.
Neither mortality rate is as high as the worldwide hysteria that has driven so much panic and fear would indicate.
They can’t recommend it although it was statistically the same as the “approved treatment”. The author of this study is totally dishonest and had a priori bias, period. There are lies, there are damned lies, and there is statistics which assesses probability, not fact. The uneducated fall prey to the charlatans running the world.
Here’s a link to the actual study since Rooters doesn’t provide one...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362
I smell a rat.
The study has 3 deaths in the ivermectin group and 10 deaths in the comparably sized control group. The sample size (about 250 people in each group) was not large enough to conclude that ivermectin was responsible for the lower death rate. So we can only be 90 percent sure ivermectin saved these 7 people from death. To be “significant” you have to be 95 percent confident. The study provides evidence that ivermectin works .The weasel word is “statistically” significant. Combine this study with the 60 other positive ivermectin studies and there is a 99.99 percent chance ivermectin works.
The fallacy....... preventing
Ivermectin cures Covid
Thanks
ionophore Yes.
Odds are the “ study” was fixed with a poor methodology and analysis. Was the full front line protocol used? Was the standard of care include of remdesivir?
Was the study double blind? What results were excluded? What findings were unreported?
Will look at study, for flaws. Most of them with this result are designed in a way that prevents the study from showing effectiveness of the inexpensive treatments.
Ivermectin works!
You’re welcome. I’ve posted it a lot, and for a while now, but I keep getting thank yous and BFLs and savings, so I am going to keep doing so.
The methodology was open label, not double blind.
This method open the door to both deliberate and unintentional bias. (Don’t trust these results.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.