02-22-2022, 12:16 PM
I was interested to see how Flyboy's favourite site c19early.com handled the bad news of these randomised trials. I looked at how it dealt with the earlier Malaysian randomised trial conducted by Lim et al. abstracted HERE
It is widely regarded as debunking ivermectin as a treatment for Covid, but the anonymous author simply decided to ignore the statistical analysis that "For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups" and assert that the study proved that Ivermectin reduced mortality by 69% to 75%. S/he claimed "The mortality reduction is consistent with the results from all trials to date. While not reaching the significance threshold with the specified test, Bayesian analysis shows a 97% probability that ivermectin reduces mortality". S/he concluded that this "equate(s) to ~4 million lives saved if adopted at the start of the pandemic.: https://c19ivermectin.com/lim.html#rn0
Apparently, the anonymous author felt s/he was able to apply statistical polyfilla that allowed him/her to draw such conclusions as well as a dark inference that there was "substantial investigator bias with a preference for a null result". That's despite the study being peer reviewed.
It seems that the anonymous site is the equivalent of the Black Knight claiming "It's only a flesh wound" in response to mortal blows. If that's the way the site manipulates studies that are clearly contrary to its support of ivermectin, it can't be taken seriously.
At some point, I'll look at how it has dealt with the retractions of fraudulent and improper studies & papers and whether it has noted the cautions added to metastudies based in part on them.
Quote:Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.
Results: Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).
Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.
It is widely regarded as debunking ivermectin as a treatment for Covid, but the anonymous author simply decided to ignore the statistical analysis that "For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups" and assert that the study proved that Ivermectin reduced mortality by 69% to 75%. S/he claimed "The mortality reduction is consistent with the results from all trials to date. While not reaching the significance threshold with the specified test, Bayesian analysis shows a 97% probability that ivermectin reduces mortality". S/he concluded that this "equate(s) to ~4 million lives saved if adopted at the start of the pandemic.: https://c19ivermectin.com/lim.html#rn0
Apparently, the anonymous author felt s/he was able to apply statistical polyfilla that allowed him/her to draw such conclusions as well as a dark inference that there was "substantial investigator bias with a preference for a null result". That's despite the study being peer reviewed.
It seems that the anonymous site is the equivalent of the Black Knight claiming "It's only a flesh wound" in response to mortal blows. If that's the way the site manipulates studies that are clearly contrary to its support of ivermectin, it can't be taken seriously.
At some point, I'll look at how it has dealt with the retractions of fraudulent and improper studies & papers and whether it has noted the cautions added to metastudies based in part on them.
