follow-up:
I'm reading each published paper 1 by 1 and the way the website frames the data is very erroneous and sloppy. It is better to go through each paper 1 by 1 and see what each of them mean, because every paper has different methods, parameters, and conclusions that they draw from their experiments. So that's what I did (and I'm still going through the data as I type). Some papers support the use of Ivermectin. Some go against it. From some of the sources listed on the website:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.10.20191619v1
the website cited this study, which has not been peer-reviewed and is still in pre-print. The paper clumps Azithromycin, Nitazoxanide, Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (IDEA treatment for short) all in one for the treatment of COVID. There is no placebo as a control, and extracting from this paper by saying this proves ivermectin to be a successful treatment is irresponsible.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249131v1.full-text
this paper had positive results from the use of ivermectin, but excludes patients with COVID who had pneumonia, required ventilator therapy, had renal failure, orthromboembolic complications (which is is a significant target population). Study shows reduced viral load in the experimental group (~3 days less) but does not indicate anything to do with reducing mortality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709596/
This paper shows positive results from ivermectin when used alone, but had no significance when ivermectin was used along with doxycycline (why that is, I have no idea).
So my point is, there may be some benefit from using ivermectin (yay!). It depends on the situation (perhaps not beneficial for severely ill patients, which is the whole point of finding treatment given that most people recover from mild illness), and your mileage may vary (oh). But to cluster data together in an inaccurate way (similar to pushing hydroxycloroquine) seems irresponsible.
That's fair, I do think the overall categories are broad from that perspective. I still think we can agree that the media statements on these treatment options are even more broad and more irresponsible.
Wow, thanks for this!
follow-up: I'm reading each published paper 1 by 1 and the way the website frames the data is very erroneous and sloppy. It is better to go through each paper 1 by 1 and see what each of them mean, because every paper has different methods, parameters, and conclusions that they draw from their experiments. So that's what I did (and I'm still going through the data as I type). Some papers support the use of Ivermectin. Some go against it. From some of the sources listed on the website:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184 Paper results showed there was a lack of significance in improvement between a group tested with ivermectin and the control group.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.10.20191619v1 the website cited this study, which has not been peer-reviewed and is still in pre-print. The paper clumps Azithromycin, Nitazoxanide, Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (IDEA treatment for short) all in one for the treatment of COVID. There is no placebo as a control, and extracting from this paper by saying this proves ivermectin to be a successful treatment is irresponsible.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S015196382030627X paper states that drug was used on patients for scabies and coincidentally had a prophylactic effect on reducing prevalence of COVID among the first group.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249131v1.full-text this paper had positive results from the use of ivermectin, but excludes patients with COVID who had pneumonia, required ventilator therapy, had renal failure, orthromboembolic complications (which is is a significant target population). Study shows reduced viral load in the experimental group (~3 days less) but does not indicate anything to do with reducing mortality.
https://ejmed.org/index.php/ejmed/article/view/599 This paper talks about using ivermectin as pre-exposure prophylaxis, which shows decreased incidence of healthcare workers contracting COVID.
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=928082082020092068074001066069016112057034090043062053107057112048105007042016110036105123014042063028018104009002051103051016122025111030115065073064068018029022074076012120095020092030069098001019096011121065119088064119014116064064116127&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE This paper talks about positive effects of ivermectin, but also excludes severely ill or hospitalized patients. It also mentions the hype around azithro + hydroxychloroquine, which proved to be efficacious in Vitro (in the lab), but not in vivo (on humans).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709596/ This paper shows positive results from ivermectin when used alone, but had no significance when ivermectin was used along with doxycycline (why that is, I have no idea).
So my point is, there may be some benefit from using ivermectin (yay!). It depends on the situation (perhaps not beneficial for severely ill patients, which is the whole point of finding treatment given that most people recover from mild illness), and your mileage may vary (oh). But to cluster data together in an inaccurate way (similar to pushing hydroxycloroquine) seems irresponsible.
That's fair, I do think the overall categories are broad from that perspective. I still think we can agree that the media statements on these treatment options are even more broad and more irresponsible.