Coronavirus: Already In a Neighborhood Near You

[Tiger337]

6 hours ago, Screwball said:

 

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

 

Moderate certainty evidence= "We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different"

That's better than "no evidence", but I'd like to see more than that especially when other studies are showing no evidence.   

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Moderate certainty evidence= "We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different"

That's better than "no evidence", but I'd like to see more than that especially when other studies are showing no evidence.   

there is also this

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2022/04000/Expression_of_Concern_for_Bryant_a,_Lawrie_TA,.11.aspx

Quote

The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Dowswell T, Fordham EJ, Mitchell S, Hill SR, Tham TC. Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines. Am J Ther. 2021;28(4): e434-e460.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least 2 primary sources of the meta-analysis performed by Mr. Andrew Bryant and his collaborators.1,2 These allegations were first made after the publication of this article. The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to invalidate the findings regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.2 The investigation of these allegations is incomplete and inconclusive at this time

 

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

there is also this

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2022/04000/Expression_of_Concern_for_Bryant_a,_Lawrie_TA,.11.aspx

 

That's the thing about journal articles.  You can trust them, on average, more than the media or some podcast, but there are still a lot of bad ones out there.  You can't just take one and point to it as evidence. You need to look at all the evidence from all the studies and make decisions based on that.  

[ewsieg]

10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That's the thing about journal articles.  You can trust them, on average, more than the media or some podcast, but there are still a lot of bad ones out there.  You can't just take one and point to it as evidence. You need to look at all the evidence from all the studies and make decisions based on that.  

Great point, which is why in the end, choose to believe the ones that match up with what you want to be true and you'll always be right.

[Screwball]

22 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That's the thing about journal articles.  You can trust them, on average, more than the media or some podcast, but there are still a lot of bad ones out there.  You can't just take one and point to it as evidence. You need to look at all the evidence from all the studies and make decisions based on that.  

You are exactly right. And I will add, you are a stat guy, so I respect your opinion. There are all kinds of studies out there one can read, and I've read quite a few. It all depends on how it is presented as you say - along with the agenda they are pushing.

You can argue this until you run out of links and Twitter posts.  Doesn't matter IMO.  It gets political and then all bets are off - insanity ensues.

My point - even the studies that show it doesn't work = also show, for some it did.  Many make a poor case for why they don't as well.

You never know, taking a few pills, no more risky than an aspirin, might save a life or two.  I'm good with that.

[pfife]

That one is a meta analysis specifically according to the title, which is a study of studies, not an independent study on its own.    Meta analysis tries to synthesize "all" of the studies into a conclusion.....what Lee said we need to do.   And unfortunately that's not super trustworthy either.

G2s link said they were accused of excluding inconvenient data, so did they jut leave out studies they didn't like?

[pfife]

I agree with Lee that we need to consume as much as we can and decide from there but it also seems like it's freaking impossible if you scale it out to every important decision you make.

That's not even addressing the notion that for most laypeople, they wouldn't have any idea what most journal articles are saying.   I had to read journal articles multiple times to get the full gist.... in the field I was pursuing a grad degree in.  

Oh and even though taxpayers fund a shitload of research in journals, journals are absurdly expensive. 

Rough go of it to be fully informed.

Edited May 19, 2022 by pfife

[Tiger337]

46 minutes ago, Screwball said:

You are exactly right. And I will add, you are a stat guy, so I respect your opinion. There are all kinds of studies out there one can read, and I've read quite a few. It all depends on how it is presented as you say - along with the agenda they are pushing.

You can argue this until you run out of links and Twitter posts.  Doesn't matter IMO.  It gets political and then all bets are off - insanity ensues.

My point - even the studies that show it doesn't work = also show, for some it did.  Many make a poor case for why they don't as well.

You never know, taking a few pills, no more risky than an aspirin, might save a life or two.  I'm good with that.

Based on what I have read, I am not confident that Ivermectin is effective for Covid.  I am confident that the vaccines are generally effective in protecting you from getting really sick and that side effects are rare.  So, that's what I took.  However If people are afraid of the vaccines and they think Ivermectin might work and they know enough not to overdose, let them do it I guess. I recommend that most people take the vaccine, but I'm also not in favor of mandates.  

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Screwball said:

You never know, taking a few pills, no more risky than an aspirin, might save a life or two.  I'm good with that.

that's fine, as long as no-one is using it as an excuse not to get vaccinated, where we have a 200 million size statistical pool that proved it's worth, or pass on a prescription for Paxlovid if your doc tells you to take it.

[Tiger337]

31 minutes ago, pfife said:

I agree with Lee that we need to consume as much as we can and decide from there but it also seems like it's freaking impossible if you scale it out to every important decision you make.

That's not even addressing the notion that for most laypeople, they wouldn't have any idea what most journal articles are saying.   I had to read journal articles multiple times to get the full gist.... in the field I was pursuing a grad degree in.  

Oh and even though taxpayers fund a shitload of research in journals, journals are absurdly expensive. 

Rough go of it to be fully informed.

Yeah, not everyone has the time or resources or knows how to interpret journal articles the right way.  That's why most people should find a doctor that they trust and ask him/her.  

[gehringer_2]

42 minutes ago, pfife said:

That one is a meta analysis specifically according to the title, which is a study of studies, not an independent study on its own.    Meta analysis tries to synthesize "all" of the studies into a conclusion.....what Lee said we need to do.   And unfortunately that's not super trustworthy either.

G2s link said they were accused of excluding inconvenient data, so did they jut leave out studies they didn't like?

actually the accusation is not against the methodology of meta-data review, it's a charge that the data in two of the studies used in the meta analysis contain bad data, which in turn, through no fault of their own, casts doubt on the result of the meta-analysis. GIGO.

Edited May 19, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

serious question:  who here knows what a trial sequential analysis is, and would be able to spot methodological bullshit in it while reading about it in an article where that method is employed?

I do data analysis for a living and I have no idea what that is let alone know if it was employed correctly/non-nefariously

[pfife]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

actually the accusation is not against the methodology of meta-data review, it's a charge that the data in two of the studies used in the meta analysis contain bad data, which in turn, through no fault of their own, casts doubt on the result of the meta-analysis. GIGO.

thanks, can't polish a turd

[pfife]

I have a super high level of skepticism of academic peer review as well.  Mainly because well that was work my advisor delegated... to his students such as me....

[gehringer_2]

15 minutes ago, pfife said:

I have a super high level of skepticism of academic peer review as well.  Mainly because well that was work my advisor delegated... to his students such as me....

yeah, there was a point a number of years ago when I was doing a lot of work in a very narrow and esoteric separations process and got to where I probably knew as much about it as anyone in the world at least for that short stretch. I found out there was a lot of garbage in the peer reviewed literature without doubt. 

However in medicine, people who look at the overall issue often talk about an even more serious problem in the lack of support for confirmation/negative results testing. At alpha=.95, 5% of all *honest*  results may be actually chasing ghosts, and there is no money, glory, or Ph.D dissertations to be gained to find them.

Edited May 19, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

25 minutes ago, pfife said:

serious question:  who here knows what a trial sequential analysis is, and would be able to spot methodological bullshit in it while reading about it in an article where that method is employed?

I do data analysis for a living and I have no idea what that is let alone know if it was employed correctly/non-nefariously

The reason I asked this is because it is in the title of the journal article being discussed. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by pfife

[pfife]

8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

yeah, there was a point a number of years ago when I was doing a lot of work in a very narrow and esoteric separations process and got to where I probably knew as much about it as anyone in the world at least for that short stretch. I found out there was a lot of garbage in the peer reviewed literature without doubt. 

However in medicine, people who look at the overall issue often talk about an even more serious problem in the lack of support for confirmation/negative results testing. At alpha=.95, 5% of all *honest*  results may be actually chasing ghosts, and there is no money, glory, or Ph.D dissertations to be gained to find them.

Yes!  I wasn't in medicine, but they taught us about how important it was to be able to replicate results but the incentive structure doesn't reward replicating results. 

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, pfife said:

The reason I asked this is because it is in the title of the journal article being discussed. 

had not heard the term before either. Looks like a reasonable summary of the idea here - I was able to get the gist from the intro but haven't waded into any of the math! 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8107247/

Part of the idea I picked up was that it guides you to size or cut your study off as soon as it reaches significance instead of working through a bigger sample than you needed.

Edited May 19, 2022 by gehringer_2

[oblong]

To be an anti Vaxxer and pro ivermectin requires dual levels of crazy.  

[Biff Mayhem]

16 hours ago, pfife said:

ivermectine really does kill parasitic worms, right?   I mean, it literally "de-worms" the worm's host?

True, but our dear friend MB is trying to dismiss it as it being the only use for it, hence the meme. He's a Brian Stelter/Don Lemon level troll.

[Motown Bombers]

2 minutes ago, Biff Mayhem said:

True, but our dear friend MB is trying to dismiss it as it being the only use for it, hence the meme. He's a Brian Stelter/Don Lemon level troll.

Your stupid meme suggested I didn't know what the word dewormer meant. It literally means to deworm and that is exactly what an anti-parisitic like Ivermectin does. I've said it is a legit drug, however, there is plenty of data that says it is not effective against COVID and taken in improper dosages can cause side effects such as diarrhea. The NIH, WHO, FDA and CDC say it is not effective against COVID. Sorry if that doesn't conform to your MAGA conspiracy theory. 

[ewsieg]

12 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Based on what I have read, I am not confident that Ivermectin is effective for Covid.

This is where I am as well, although I would not be surprised to learn in a few years that it did have some benefits.  And as much of a concern there is of a certain group of people deciding it's beneficial without true evidence, I find it equally concerning that the other side has to play the other extreme and call it a horse de-wormer, when it's already been proven to be so much more, when early on, they didn't have any evidence either.

[Motown Bombers]

6 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

This is where I am as well, although I would not be surprised to learn in a few years that it did have some benefits.  And as much of a concern there is of a certain group of people deciding it's beneficial without true evidence, I find it equally concerning that the other side has to play the other extreme and call it a horse de-wormer, when it's already been proven to be so much more, when early on, they didn't have any evidence either.

Because it's literally used to deworm horses. That's why it's called horse dewormer. It's even sold at places like Tractor Supply to be used as a horse dewormer. People are actually buying that stuff and taking it because of things they heard on the internet. Tractor Supply even has to put a disclaimer on their website that it should not be used for human consumption to treat COVID because people are using it to treat COVID. Don't both sides this. 

Zimecterin (Ivermectin) 1.87% Horse Wormer Paste, 0.21 oz., 7096120 at Tractor Supply Co.

[Tiger337]

9 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

This is where I am as well, although I would not be surprised to learn in a few years that it did have some benefits.  And as much of a concern there is of a certain group of people deciding it's beneficial without true evidence, I find it equally concerning that the other side has to play the other extreme and call it a horse de-wormer, when it's already been proven to be so much more, when early on, they didn't have any evidence either.

The problem is when that certain group of people includes politicians.  

[Edman85]

I'm getting a second booster tomorrow. I don't care if my eligibility is only barely borderline. Tired of rapid testing because people around me have it.

 

Also after the december/January boom resulted from boosters being poopooed for too long, the resistance of the CDC and FDA to greenlight a second booster for all is inexcusable.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Edman85