Coronavirus - Doomsday

[TimHauck 1,480]

6 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Hero?  Also, some idiot retweeted a March 22 tweet of a June 21 convo where Bret is riffing about Ivermectin, without the context of the entire discussion, and this is some great gotcha?  This, from the guy whose comment to somebody who posts something from two weeks ago is "that's old news$#@!"   

To my knowledge, you still haven't shown where Ivermectin has been disproven effective as a prophylactic.  

I’m also not sure what you’re referring to about me calling something old news, I may have said something along those lines but only if there was already a discussion in the thread about it, or if you’re referring to “Fauci admitted the vaccine can cause myocarditis,” it is “old news” as that happened over 2 years ago.

[TimHauck 1,480]

Here's a good centrist take(s):

 

 

 

 

 

Study of 44 million people found 21 myocarditis deaths.  Yes, vaccine myocarditis can be serious, and myocarditis deaths have occurred but they are extremely rare, that doesn't mean every time a middle aged person "dies suddenly" that the vaccine killed them.

 

[lickin_starfish 1,285]

The new Coov Vacks is ready! Get your updated shots, Timmy!

[naomi 324]

 

[jerryskids 4,605]

On 9/16/2023 at 1:43 PM, TimHauck said:

Not sure why you’re attacking the messenger for sharing a direct quote from Weinstein, although that guy is not an idiot anyway, he points out when people make stupid statements about stats, which Bret often does.

How much more context do you need?

Question:  “if you were running the world, what would you do now?”

Weinstein: “Divide the world into borders that you can police…give some [ivermectin] to everybody coming in and say you gotta take this”

An anti-mandate, anti-lockdown dude says if he was running the world he’d police the borders and force everyone to take ivermectin.

Here’s a meta analysis showing no statistically significant difference for ivermectin as a prophylaxis:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10041226/
 

Yes more of the “negative” ivermectin trials have focused on treatment, but I assume you’re also acknowledging that ivermectin was never “proven” as a prophylaxis in the first place.

Apparently you don't understand context.  Repeating the same things without any additional info on the discussion before or after, or anything else about the talk, does not add context.  HTH.

Regarding your study, it's odd that there is a meta analysis of all of these studies we haven't otherwise discussed regarding ivermectin as a prophylactic.  But let's look at the some of the comments in it. 

Quote

 In the pooled analysis including cohort study, we noted significant reduction in COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.18 and CI = 0.13, 0.24) with homogenous findings between the studies (I2 = 9.5% and P = 0.331) [Figure 3].

...

Conclusion
Further evidence is needed for potential role in prophylaxis and treatment with ivermectin in COVID-19. Our Present analysis conclude that Ivermectin is not the ‘magical silver weapon’ against COVID-19 infections.

Limitations
Due to the paucity of studies, we included only a limited number of studies that are conducted in different countries and mostly in low-resources and health care systems that were overburdened. There was also evidence from the combined analysis including both non-RCT and RCT studies that did not observe significant differences between the prophylaxis and non-prophylaxis group, thus further studies would require validation in larger double blind RCTs.

As your article says, there is some evidence on the effectiveness, but they have determined that it isn't conclusive, and that more studies are required.  Which I'm presuming haven't been done, or else you would have posted it.

Is this your point?  Ivermectin may work but we haven't tested it?  Congrats I guess.   

[edjr 5,044]

jerryskids for POTS

[TimHauck 1,480]

7 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Apparently you don't understand context.  Repeating the same things without any additional info on the discussion before or after, or anything else about the talk, does not add context.  HTH.

Regarding your study, it's odd that there is a meta analysis of all of these studies we haven't otherwise discussed regarding ivermectin as a prophylactic.  But let's look at the some of the comments in it. 

As your article says, there is some evidence on the effectiveness, but they have determined that it isn't conclusive, and that more studies are required.  Which I'm presuming haven't been done, or else you would have posted it.

Is this your point?  Ivermectin may work but we haven't tested it?  Congrats I guess.   

Usually when people talk about missing context, they’re talking about like a 5-10 second quote being taken out of context.  That was a minute and forty seconds where both the question and answer were included.  The context was provided.

And holy sh1t, in literally the same post where you complain about missing context, you take out context from the study.  You deleted the prior two sentences where the results were not significant.  They were only significant in “cohort studies,” where there were only 3 to begin with, and at least one of them (Carvallo - which was why Weinstein claimed it was “nearly perfect” as a prophylaxis) was proven to be fraudulent. 

C’mon jerry, be better.

 

[jerryskids 4,605]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Usually when people talk about missing context, they’re talking about like a 5-10 second quote being taken out of context.  That was a minute and forty seconds where both the question and answer were included.  The context was provided.

And holy sh1t, in literally the same post where you complain about missing context, you take out context from the study.  You deleted the prior two sentences where the results were not significant.  They were only significant in “cohort studies,” where there were only 3 to begin with, and at least one of them (Carvallo - which was why Weinstein claimed it was “nearly perfect” as a prophylaxis) was proven to be fraudulent. 

C’mon jerry, be better.

 

Here are the two sentences before that I "deleted," along with the one I included:

Quote

The pooled analysis involving the non-RCTs studies also did not observe significant reduction in the COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group as compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.01 and CI = 0.00, 7.97) with significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 95%, P < 0.001). In the combined analysis including both non-RCT and RCT studies also did not observe significant difference between prophylaxis and non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.01 and CI = 0.10, 1.04) but there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 98.7%) [Figure 2]. In the pooled analysis including cohort study, we noted significant reduction in COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.18 and CI = 0.13, 0.24) with homogenous findings between the studies (I2 = 9.5% and P = 0.331) [Figure 3].

Regarding context, you are wrong of course.  That being said, I'm not "excusing" what he said, I merely asked for some context around the discussion group and the rest of the discussion.  

Regarding your meta-study, they are talking about three different studies.  The third, as I already pointed out, noted "significant reduction in positivity."  The first two didn't, but they also exhibited high heterogeneity.

From the internet:

Heterogeneity in meta-analysis refers to the variation in study outcomes between studies. StatsDirect calls statistics for measuring heterogentiy in meta-analysis 'non-combinability' statistics in order to help the user to interpret the results. Measuring the inconsistency of studies' results.

Also from the internet:

Don't do a meta-analysis if heterogeneity is too high – Not every systematic review needs a meta-analysis. Explore heterogeneity – This can be done by subgroup analysis or meta-regression.

So the authors included two studies with high variability in a meta-analysis, where such inclusion is not preferred.

Perhaps this all led to why their conclusions, which I included and you ignored, indicated that more study is required.  I asked if such studies were performed, and perhaps that is how we got here in this circular discussion.  I'm guessing they haven't.  So we still don't know.

Be better, Tim.

[TimHauck 1,480]

Sorry guess it was three sentences not two.

Here’s the one before your last excerpt:

In the pooled analysis, we observed non-significant less COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group as compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.27 and CI = 0.05, 1.41) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97.1%, P < 0.001)

 

It wasn’t three different “studies,” it was 3 different groupings of studies, with only 1 of them finding a significant result.  And that was based on three studies, at least one of which was confirmed to be fraudulent (maybe more).

I didn’t ignore the authors’ conclusion, I stated the overall result was not statistically significant which is true.  “Needs further study” is pretty much the same thing as saying the results aren’t statistically significant…

And again, I’ve acknowledged that there is more data regarding ivermectin’s ineffectiveness as a treatment than a prophylaxis.  But the other part of the conclusion that you posted is that they said based on their analysis that “it’s not the magical silver weapon” like some such as Weinstein have claimed.

But because we know it doesn’t work to actually treat Covid, I’m not sure where the logic is that it could prevent it.  And even if it could, it’s still not a real alternative to the vaccine (getting back to the incredibly stupid “ivermectin could have invalidated the vaccines’ EUA!” argument) because you’d have to take it every day.

[lickin_starfish 1,285]

Get the new shot yet, Timmy? Why not? You scared?

[naomi 324]

 

[Ultra Max Power 199]

The misinformation coming from the Biden Administration and health officials is stunning.

[jerryskids 4,605]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Sorry guess it was three sentences not two.

Here’s the one before your last excerpt:

In the pooled analysis, we observed non-significant less COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group as compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.27 and CI = 0.05, 1.41) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97.1%, P < 0.001)

 

It wasn’t three different “studies,” it was 3 different groupings of studies, with only 1 of them finding a significant result.  And that was based on three studies, at least one of which was confirmed to be fraudulent (maybe more).

I didn’t ignore the authors’ conclusion, I stated the overall result was not statistically significant which is true.  “Needs further study” is pretty much the same thing as saying the results aren’t statistically significant…

And again, I’ve acknowledged that there is more data regarding ivermectin’s ineffectiveness as a treatment than a prophylaxis.  But the other part of the conclusion that you posted is that they said based on their analysis that “it’s not the magical silver weapon” like some such as Weinstein have claimed.

But because we know it doesn’t work to actually treat Covid, I’m not sure where the logic is that it could prevent it.  And even if it could, it’s still not a real alternative to the vaccine (getting back to the incredibly stupid “ivermectin could have invalidated the vaccines’ EUA!” argument) because you’d have to take it every day.

It's not a stretch to think prophylactics work by different mechanisms than cures do.  Otherwise you could just take the vax once you get a disease, for instance.

@Casual Observerposted an article recently which, while not a study, riffed on some possible mechanism by which ivermectin might work.  I believe their were some postulations in there.