Okay. I guess we'll discard all science done unless it's clinical research. That's easily an overwhelming majority of science, pretty much all social sciences.

Not entirely sure why you're bothered by these findings from people that actually are knowledgeable and researchers in this field. Literally implying scientists and researchers could be wrong just because you hate Rogan?

I'm literally a scientist you dunce. I work in in vitro cellular systems like this company's work is in and I'm well aware of the limitations of those models. What do you do?

Cool, I guess an appeal to authority entitles you to hold unrealistic burdens of proof. Should all science that's not clinical research be discarded and minimized? What about science where it's literally impossible to hold in a clinical setting?

No of course not. Strawmanning what I'm saying is just stupid. There's a reason the drug development pipeline takes compounds through a defined pathway that goes from in vitro testing, preclinical animal models for safety and efficacy into human trials after it's passed each previous hurdle. It's because each step is progressively more expensive and complicated as you introduce complexity into your system. The attrition rate at each step is enormous.

I would never take a drug that's only showed in vitro promise as you're more likely to die from it than have your disease cured purely by the numbers.

Ivermectin has also been tested in a clinical setting for covid and failed. Repeatedly. Many times all over the world.

It isn't an unrealistic standard of evidence. It's literally the standard we have held every drug treatment to for the last 50+ years.

This post was edited by Sioux on Feb 1 2022 09:00pm

Sources?

Literally found this within 30 seconds of googling.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/11/ofab358/6316214

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

I recommended reading the second link in full. It's written in plain English for non scientists such as yourself.

This post was edited by Sioux on Feb 1 2022 09:21pm

Can you explain to me why certain studies (ones you apparently agree with) hold weight but ones like the one I posted or this more recent Japan one you choose to reflexively minimize?

I’m just trying to understand why some scientific research you believe but other findings that you don’t agree with you want to minimize?

Research happens in an aggregate. Any single study may or may not be true. I completely believe that Japanese company saw a reduction of whatever their outcome is in whatever model they're using, that doesn't mean its a clinically effective compound. I have literally worked on compounds that had incredible in vitro and preclinical data that flopped in clinical trials. It's deflating and it sucks but it happens more than you succeed. I'm not the one of the two of us cherry-picking research to back up my world-view, the aggregate weight of the data that currently exists points to Ivermectin not being clinically useful to treat covid symptoms. You can find outlier studies or in-vitro reports or even shitty pre-prints to back yourself up, but you're intentionally overlooking the volumes of data suggesting otherwise to find information to turn on your dopamine system to feel self-rightous.

You opened this conversation by saying I was holding non-clinical data to to high a standard, and I've told you its literally the standard all compounds are held to. No one develops a drug based off an in-vitro assay without a decade of work in between.

Also more importantly, the meta-analysis you've posted is still including a study that showed the largest decrease in covid deaths out of all the ivermectin trials in their aggregate that got pulled for fraudulent data/plagarism.

This post was edited by Sioux on Feb 1 2022 09:42pm

there's no money in ivermectin, it's been a generic drug since 1996

The only deduction a rational person should be getting here is the case is clearly not settled on Ivermectin being ineffective. I’m not a scientist and personally to me it makes no difference if it’s found effective or not (although another arrow in the quiver against covid is always good). To me it’s illogical that Reuters would be publishing this and these Japanese researchers would be claiming such things publicly if there wasn’t something there. I’m sure they are aware and have much more expert teams reading through previous research and incorporating it in theirs so no unlike you I won’t minimize the most recent findings.