Let's do a mini review to compare and contrast. 89 patients, so a fairly small study, done done between May 2020 and Jan 2021.
Therefore the patients would be dealing with the original strain of the virus, mostly. Maybe some Alpha towards the end.
We see that the weights are fairly concentrated with the top quartile starting at 90kg.
...which is why the fairly limited dosing, about half the dosing of TOGETHER, would have been more likely to have shown an effect.
Note that they straightforwardly tell us that the patients got pills of the same appearance. TOGETHER did not make such a statement, nor have the authors clarified despite repeated calls. (Cc @FlavioCadegiani)
In the all important "time to symptom onset" category they were aiming up to 3 in the beginning, but had to extend upto 7 days. Given the slower replication of early variants, this may have been less crucial? Still, would be good to get a median value here, I can't see it.
On to the results. 3 hospitalizations in placebo, only one in treatment, discharged after a day. Given the fairly small size of the trial, this wouldn't be able to reach "statistical significance" levels.
In terms of the study primary endpoint, even with such a small patient population, it reached "statistical significance". Ivm reduced time of shedding, affected viral viability, showing antiviral activity.
Importantly, and this is something I've said often, ivm, needs to be tested under the same conditions other antivirals are. It doesn't need magic conditions, only fair ones.
When tested similarly to molnupiravir or remdesivir, its antiviral activity comes through.
All in all, here we have a study from a "western" country (Israel), which is out of the "high strongyloides" zone. How are we to explain this one away? semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Glob…
Update on time from symptom onset: it's there, I'm blind.
Median 4 days, with top quartile starting at 5. So as far as we've seen, fairly small time, given how long PCR tests needed early on, and lower than TOGETHER, even though this is an unfunded study.
So, what might the critical voices say? Let's start with @slatestarcodex. He says it's a.. ""negative"" study?
WHAT?
Ah, but you see, the person who destroyed his article, @GidMK is "not a fan" (this is my shocked face). 😐
Scott says that they excluded patients with high viral load.
This appears to be (yet another) misunderstanding of Scott, who misread the confused objection of @gidmk. Let's dive deeper.
You see, HN found that they excluded patients with PCT Ct > 35 in the first two tests. Scott reads this as "high viral load". In fact it is the EXACT OPPOSITE. It's LOW VIRAL LOAD. The more cycles PCR needs to find your positive result, the LESS virus you have for it to analyze.
And since the study was focused on analyzing the effect of ivermectin on viral load, they excluded patients with low viral load.
BUT BUT BUT the pre-registration!!
Many tried to explain to @GidMK that he was misunderstanding his HUGE DISCREPANCY.
And really, if we're throwing away studies for violating pre-registration, what about TOGETHER changing the primary endpoint and merging two endpoints into one?
What about activ-6 not even reporting its pre-registered primary endpoint?
Rigor for thee but not for me, as usual.
Concluding, here's a positive study that shows quite encouraging results for ivermectin, done with parameters that are not quite comparable, but closer than the big studies to the patented antivirals in terms of dosing, time since symptom onset, in relation to the variant tested.
PS. Excellent thread by @AOlavarria worth clicking "translate tweet" on, for every tweet:
Worth noting that the trial took place in Sheba medical center, one of the world's top hospitals, ranked higher than Stanford, Brigham & Women’s, and Mount Sinai, amongst others.
(Thank you, anonymous tipster) newsweek.com/best-hospitals…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Did you now that the PRINCIPLE trial out of the UK found that IVM was superior to the usual care in practically every subgroup it tested, but it sat on the results for ~600 days? When it finally published, it buried these results in page 346 of the appendix.
The main body of the paper they published is even more bizarre --
1. They claim that "clinically meaningful" meant 1.5 days improvement in median time to recovery. 2. They admit that ivermectin showed >2 days to recovery. 3. Their main conclusion is that ivermectin is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery.
The secret sauce in their conclusion is that their target metric of HR 1.2 is based on 9 days of recovery needed (after randomization). Even though they had ran many hundreds of patients by the time they started the ivm arm they knew the days needed for recovery were >14.
Let's do a thread doing a close reading of Douglas Murray's article in the NY Post, in which he writes about his encounter with Dave Smith on Joe Rogan's podcast.
If you care about facts and truth and stuff, I promise this will be highly illuminating. 🧵
"Having not spoken to Joe since the wars in Ukraine and Israel started, I had become increasingly irked that the guests he has had on have been almost entirely anti-Ukraine and anti-Israel."
As many have demonstrated, this is false.
Since late 2023, at the very least these guests with strong pro-israel views have appeared at least once on the podcast.
Gad Saad
Mike Baker
Peter Zeihan
Douglas Murray
Coleman Hughes
Konstantin Kisin (3 times)
So, the Ukranian constitution gives the president the power to declare martial law, and explicitly says that parliamentary elections can be delayed until after martial law is lifted. For presidential elections it says they must happen every 5 years with no martial law exception.
Whitney Webb's failure to admit error, (and how to survive the 2025+ infowars without getting blackpilled)
I had a run-in with Whitney Webb this week. This THREAD will try to walk you through the story in excruciating detail.
This will take a while, but I think it's worth it.
It all started when @BretWeinstein thanked @POTUS for withdrawing from the WHO. Bret had fought long and hard against the WHO pandemic treaty that was being pushed, so whoever had followed him knows how important this is.
@BretWeinstein @POTUS Whitney Webb felt the need to point out that "Trump also left the WHO in mid-2020 and then just redirected what was once WHO funding to the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine alliance."
Your favorite blackpill dealer, Whitney Webb, here with more trash data and vague insinuations.
In this episode, she claims Trump "redirected" WHO funding to GAVI. In reality, she is asserting that unrelated funding from USAID to GAVI was made because of the withdrawal from WHO in 2020.
The USAID funding to GAVI was part of a long-term funding stream that USAID had been providing to GAVI since 2001.
Some people are saying that maybe the 1.4B in 2016-2020 was concentrated in 2020. Not true. A billion was pledged for the period of 2015-2018. Then 1.16 billion was pledged for the period between 2020-2023. Taking inflation into account, that is effectively the same amount, for the same duration of time.