There is zero evidence that covering our mouths & noses when we sneeze or cough, stops our germs from becoming airborne and spreading. I guess you're one of those that just sneezes and coughs in other peoples faces, right ?
Hooray !!!, someone who finally gets it. Couldn't have said it better myself. The problem is, most of the uneducated population (particularly on here) will err on the side of these pundidiots (not heard that one before, so apologies for plagiarizing)
Yes, you're right I was clicking on 'discussion' instead of 'source', my bad.
However, if you've read the results and conclusions from the 'sources', you will see that none of them say conclusively that Ivermectin works. Additionally, most also say 'further studies are required'. This is NOT what you say when reporting the results of a clinical trial. I would also point out that these are NOT Clinical Trials, they are studies only, a sort of 'proof of concept'. There is no way in hell a treatment would get approval anywhere in the world from these studies, which are essentially just publications.
The problem here is that most people don't understand what it takes to have any regulatory body, anywhere in the world, approve a drug or medical device. You can't just do a study, publish your results in a journal and then magically say a drug works and expect it to be available to the general public. What is to stop someone falsifying the data ? Did they really actually do the study ? That is why the discussion of results and conclusions in these links are vaguely worded and use the 'catch all' statement that further studies are required. That stops them from getting into trouble with the regulatory bodies.
I'm sure you're aware of the recent Theranos scandal and how people and investors were duped ? Go back further in time to Barr Laboratories, Thalidomide etc. These failures were why strict regulations were put in place, and regulatory bodies were formed in order to get approval of drug treatments.
Clinical Trials require regulatory approval of the trial design & protocols, before they can even be started. All the results and raw data have to be submitted and verified by regulatory authorities, and then it is the regulatory authority that determines if the drug treatment is suitable for human use.
Hopefully you can now see what I'm getting at in my above posts. Just because a study is published in a journal, does not mean it is accurate and therefore suitable for human use. Otherwise we would all be making our own Ivermectin (or any drug for that matter) in our garages, designing our own studies, making up our own results, and then telling everyone on social media how great Ivermectin (or our new drug) is. Sort of like the black market and counterfeit drugs that come in from China.
I haven't missed the point, you have. There is no clinical evidence in any of those links (or anywhere else for that matter) to show that it's even 0.00001% effective, let alone 10%. None of those links direct you to the actual place where the CT data was published. Instead, they direct you to another page on the 'ivmmeta' website where they have cherrypicked and summarized the data to fit their needs. Why don't they link the reader to the actual publication where the CT result were published? The answer is pretty obvious, no?
Most of the studies (links) which I clicked on are using Ivermectin in conjunction with other treatments, and none of @CovidAnalysis summaries provide any clear results or conclusions, beyond what THEY want the reader to think..
Also, if you haven't noticed the same people have a hydroxychloroquine website 'hcqmeta.com' that makes the same claims about HCQ based on their identical meta-analysis. From what I gather, they had to backtrack on what they initially posted because they were called out for astroturfing and making up terms like 'Country Randomized Trials' (which there is no such thing in the world of Clinical Trials).
You come across as a reasonable and intelligent person, so please get your info from a reputable scientific source, not from a shadowy website.
In closing, I'm not saying Ivermectin (or HCQ) couldn't be effective in treating COVID but until peer reviewed data from a full blown, professionally designed and executed Clinical Trial has been published in a reputable journal, I will not be getting on board.
Also, I don't suppose you noticed that there is nothing on that website about the authors of the website, no homepage, no "About us", absolutely no background information at all. Hmm, to most people that would be a real red flag. The only indication of who posted the information is under the FAQ's section (which you have to search for), where it says they are "@CovidAnalysis". I'll leave you to research them.
*Different websites **(such as https://ivmmeta.com/,**https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudio…, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colorful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled **estimates** suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.*
Try again bro
And FYI, I have spent a considerable part of my working life in the area of clinical trials in one capacity or another. I don't claim to know everything about trial design and interpretation of data, but I do know when a publication of clinical trial data just doesn't seem right, and that website you posted a link to definitely didn't seem right.
Sorry, but that is not a scientific study. It's just one persons experience, and his recovery could be due to any one of, or a combination of, several other medications he was on as part of his treatment.
Interesting how the article (which incidentally can be found word for exact word on many dubious sites), somehow manages to determine that it was HCQ that helped 'cure' him. Sorry, but I smell an ulterior political motive here.
Bobsyeruncle says...
There is zero evidence that covering our mouths & noses when we sneeze or cough, stops our germs from becoming airborne and spreading. I guess you're one of those that just sneezes and coughs in other peoples faces, right ?
On INSIGHT: An end to curfews but will call for discipline go unheard?
Posted 16 November 2021, 4:58 p.m. Suggest removal
Bobsyeruncle says...
Hooray !!!, someone who finally gets it. Couldn't have said it better myself.
The problem is, most of the uneducated population (particularly on here) will err on the side of these pundidiots (not heard that one before, so apologies for plagiarizing)
On New rules for a ‘new reality’
Posted 2 November 2021, 10:30 p.m. Suggest removal
Bobsyeruncle says...
So wrong in so many ways
On New rules for a ‘new reality’
Posted 2 November 2021, 10:26 p.m. Suggest removal
Bobsyeruncle says...
Neither does having none of the alphabet after your name.
On New rules for a ‘new reality’
Posted 2 November 2021, 10:25 p.m. Suggest removal
Bobsyeruncle says...
Yes, you're right I was clicking on 'discussion' instead of 'source', my bad.
However, if you've read the results and conclusions from the 'sources', you will see that none of them say conclusively that Ivermectin works. Additionally, most also say 'further studies are required'. This is NOT what you say when reporting the results of a clinical trial. I would also point out that these are NOT Clinical Trials, they are studies only, a sort of 'proof of concept'. There is no way in hell a treatment would get approval anywhere in the world from these studies, which are essentially just publications.
The problem here is that most people don't understand what it takes to have any regulatory body, anywhere in the world, approve a drug or medical device. You can't just do a study, publish your results in a journal and then magically say a drug works and expect it to be available to the general public. What is to stop someone falsifying the data ? Did they really actually do the study ? That is why the discussion of results and conclusions in these links are vaguely worded and use the 'catch all' statement that further studies are required. That stops them from getting into trouble with the regulatory bodies.
I'm sure you're aware of the recent Theranos scandal and how people and investors were duped ? Go back further in time to Barr Laboratories, Thalidomide etc. These failures were why strict regulations were put in place, and regulatory bodies were formed in order to get approval of drug treatments.
Clinical Trials require regulatory approval of the trial design & protocols, before they can even be started. All the results and raw data have to be submitted and verified by regulatory authorities, and then it is the regulatory authority that determines if the drug treatment is suitable for human use.
Hopefully you can now see what I'm getting at in my above posts. Just because a study is published in a journal, does not mean it is accurate
and therefore suitable for human use. Otherwise we would all be making our own Ivermectin (or any drug for that matter) in our garages, designing our own studies, making up our own results, and then telling everyone on social media how great Ivermectin (or our new drug) is. Sort of like the black market and counterfeit drugs that come in from China.
On ‘DYING PEOPLE TOO SLOW TO SEEK HELP’: Darville says patients not seeking medical aid until it is too late
Posted 28 October 2021, 4:14 p.m. Suggest removal
Bobsyeruncle says...
I haven't missed the point, you have. There is no clinical evidence in any of those links (or anywhere else for that matter) to show that it's even 0.00001% effective, let alone 10%. None of those links direct you to the actual place where the CT data was published. Instead, they direct you to another page on the 'ivmmeta' website where they have cherrypicked and summarized the data to fit their needs. Why don't they link the reader to the actual publication where the CT result were published? The answer is pretty obvious, no?
Most of the studies (links) which I clicked on are using Ivermectin in conjunction with other treatments, and none of @CovidAnalysis summaries provide any clear results or conclusions, beyond what THEY want the reader to think..
Also, if you haven't noticed the same people have a hydroxychloroquine website 'hcqmeta.com' that makes the same claims about HCQ based on their identical meta-analysis. From what I gather, they had to backtrack on what they initially posted because they were called out for astroturfing and making up terms like 'Country Randomized Trials' (which there is no such thing in the world of Clinical Trials).
You come across as a reasonable and intelligent person, so please get your info from a reputable scientific source, not from a shadowy website.
In closing, I'm not saying Ivermectin (or HCQ) couldn't be effective in treating COVID but until peer reviewed data from a full blown, professionally designed and executed Clinical Trial has been published in a reputable journal, I will not be getting on board.
Peace. Have a good weekend.
On ‘DYING PEOPLE TOO SLOW TO SEEK HELP’: Darville says patients not seeking medical aid until it is too late
Posted 27 October 2021, 10:06 p.m. Suggest removal
Bobsyeruncle says...
Also, I don't suppose you noticed that there is nothing on that website about the authors of the website, no homepage, no "About us", absolutely no background information at all. Hmm, to most people that would be a real red flag. The only indication of who posted the information is under the FAQ's section (which you have to search for), where it says they are "@CovidAnalysis". I'll leave you to research them.
On ‘DYING PEOPLE TOO SLOW TO SEEK HELP’: Darville says patients not seeking medical aid until it is too late
Posted 27 October 2021, 7:42 p.m. Suggest removal
Bobsyeruncle says...
About your link:
*Different websites **(such as https://ivmmeta.com/,** https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudio…, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colorful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled **estimates** suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.*
Try again bro
And FYI, I have spent a considerable part of my working life in the area of clinical trials in one capacity or another. I don't claim to know everything about trial design and interpretation of data, but I do know when a publication of clinical trial data just doesn't seem right, and that website you posted a link to definitely didn't seem right.
On ‘DYING PEOPLE TOO SLOW TO SEEK HELP’: Darville says patients not seeking medical aid until it is too late
Posted 27 October 2021, 7:13 p.m. Suggest removal
Bobsyeruncle says...
Sorry, but that is not a scientific study. It's just one persons experience, and his recovery could be due to any one of, or a combination of, several other medications he was on as part of his treatment.
Interesting how the article (which incidentally can be found word for exact word on many dubious sites), somehow manages to determine that it was HCQ that helped 'cure' him. Sorry, but I smell an ulterior political motive here.
On ‘DYING PEOPLE TOO SLOW TO SEEK HELP’: Darville says patients not seeking medical aid until it is too late
Posted 27 October 2021, 5:41 p.m. Suggest removal
Bobsyeruncle says...
You really need to come up with a different and more intelligent riposte. You're becoming a bore
On Thieves ransack Bahamas Humane Society
Posted 26 October 2021, 8:04 p.m. Suggest removal