It's Worms All the Way Down: The Ivermectin Thread

Not sure exactly what you mean, but EBM is strict for really good reasons. In general, studies are very biased towards a positive result in medicine. False positive studies have extremely negative effects both in resource allocation and harm to patients.

The shitty truth about medicine is that people frequently get better all on their own and a lot of our interventions are worthless, with basic stuff being far more important. That even applies to critical care, where we used to do a lot more invasive stuff regularly but it was shown to not be helpful.

Hell, with covid we were all about big interventions at first. We intubated early, paralyzed people on the vent (not something normally done), and generally did a lot of invasive intervention. Now we do less invasive options like high flow nasal cannula or BiPAP instead. The fact that we started with the big interventions instead of working up to do demonstrates nicely our bias.

2 Likes

I don’t know how good a discussion can possibly be when the inciting action is so ridiculous.

Oh man oh man, the media and libruls will sure feel dumb if ivermectin pans out to actually work for covid. Look at this study that says it might actually be a good tx option, and look at this one that says it might be a good prophylaxis. Sure it probably won’t pan out, but oh boy if it does all these experts who read Cochrane will sure feel silly.

So naturally, being a dumb beginning to a dumber conversation I spent the morning of my day off reading ivermectin literature, and holy shit is it all just bad. Like, it has been said over and over that there isn’t any statistically significant evidence ivermectin works. That isn’t some exaggeration, there legit isn’t evidence for its general use for treating covid. The evidence that is there might support yet another large double blind study, but even that is likely wasting resources.

Meanwhile we have a whole group of antivax assholes in the hospital all cut from the same stupid cloth demanding ivermectin, and their compatriots who aren’t in the hospital yet are literally eating horse dewormer. Now the best and brightest of the horse paste eaters can do a little math and cut the horse ivermectin down to a reasonable human dose. But let’s be honest here, how many people who can competently do a unit conversion are willing to get their covid treatment from the feed store.

Now I’m obviously not an expert in any of this nonsense, but I do have to deal with the aftermath of a potential pandemic treatment turning into a right wing meme. Worse we’ve seen this script over and over and over again. So no, I’m not interested in having a but maybe conversation about ivermectin here. The messaging should be 100% it doesn’t work and every asshole doctor who prescribes it outside of a double blind study should have his license to practice medicine revoked.

27 Likes

I’ve often said this about chiropractors. The few times I’ve gone to one I’m certain that the only that helped me was time. I doubt the chiropractor did anything.

The disconnect with the antivaxxers saying that 99.7% of people will survive covid and then blaming their own survival on Ivermectin is pretty telling of their dumbness.

1 Like

Good post, but to be clear the conversation I was envisioning would have been much more about trying to improve the forum by analyzing our own behaviors than about resolving “the ivermectin question” per se.

I just want “pro ivermectin” posting to stop.

So you think ChrisV, Bobman, and me have been “pro ivermectin” posting?

You should probably start permaban threads.

So the takeaway is that I should be taking Ivermectin after all?

2 Likes

Yes, and also just about everything else, because it’s in the realm of possibility that most things might work. Might even be a better chance that some random OTC medication you get at CVS helps covid than ivermectin, because most won’t already have data showing no statistically significant result.

3 Likes

Don’t forget that a study showed a statistically insignificant “benefit” in a study that changed their primary outcome after their original outcome failed.

1 Like

Literally everyone here agrees on this. Chris, Bob, Ikes, etc… everyone.

I initially read the whole thing as mostly messaging argument, but apparently that’s not quite it either.

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1434991544306704395

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1434991873953832962

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1434992029919031303

this is how 95% of news works

3 Likes

https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1435013906448195589

Lol, no it’s not.

3 Likes

Trumpers engage in disdainful mockery that is alienating rather than persuasive. I say, tit for tat.

There is a kernel of truth to that in that uninsured people who can’t afford healthcare and medication in our hellscape of a healthcare system do try to substitute in cheaper animal medication.

It is, uh, not a validation of conservative governance or culture nor is it applicable for this example.

1 Like

People do take fish antibiotics. However, ime it is usually in response to a bacterial infection. Not to ward off the measles or what have you.

s. It is extremely common. Disdainful mockery of that practice by urban elites is alienating, not persuasive. It is also udderly at odds with how

2 Likes

You trailed off so I FYP

1 Like

I’m pretty sure this point had already been made. Or is irrelevant.

My take of the CN vs Bobman, someone else and Microbet derail.
CN: studies show no significant evidence that something works, therefore it doesn’t work.
Others: Studies don’t show conclusively that it doesn’t work.
CN: There are tons of studies that don’t confirm something doesn’t work, it’s a waste of resources to show that. All that matters is if it shows that the treatment does work.
Others: But we can’t say conclusively that it doesn’t work.
CN: Yes, we can. Nothing works until it can be proven to work. Drinking beer doesn’t help with covid and neither does Ivermectin.
Others: You can’t prove…
CN: Go fuck yourself

3 Likes