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
In trying to keep up with the vast pace of developments across many fronts, I have started to hypothesize something. Perhaps it is oversimplified. Perhaps it is just wrong. I am open to all eventualities, I'm sharing this to get feedback.
When Mike Johnson did his complete turnaround, I started to wonder what he could possibly have been told that changed his view so drastically. It is tempting to think it was some personal threat to his reputation or family. But that is a low-context explanation that could apply to anything, and as such is not very informative, imo.
What if, what he was told, is that what is going on is pretty much the opening moves for WW3? See the map below and think about what was recently approved with the help of Mike Johnson:
- Warrantless wiretapping
- TikTok forced sale or banning
- Funding for Ukraine
- Funding for Israel
- Funding for Taiwan
- No funding for strenghtening the border (and actually perhaps some funding to get *more* people into the US)
Basically, infowar funding for the internals of the empire, and actual war funding to support the borderlands (Taiwan, Israel, Ukraine) against the rising BRICS powers. And an entry to the US of cheap workforce that will be needed to set up a new industrial base. At best we end up with a new Cold War. If we're lucky.
Maybe I'm giving people in power more credit than they're worth. Perhaps I refuse to believe they're simply arrogant and incompetent. But for better or worse, I can't stop thinking about this map, and what it means for the world.
I may have classified some countries wrong, by the way, I'm open to suggestions on specifics. In particular, It's likely that Hungary and Serbia should be at the very least a kind of greyzone. Also, US influence in south Asia probably goes further than I marked. And of course Africa is a competition zone, with Russia and China making inroads and France/EU losing ground, but nothing yet completely settled.
Anyway, hopefully this is interesting to others as it was to me. (runs away and hides in bunker)
Was about to mention that the poles are about to become a zone of intense competition between the blocks.
This Ben Shapiro/Dave Rubin clip is one of the most important recorded interactions for people who care about hypocrisy in the public sphere.
Thread 🧵 with some thoughts below.
First, Shapiro makes the argument that Daily Wire is a publisher (like a magazine or a newspaper) not a platform (like locals).
Interestingly, he implies that the Daily Wire was *subsidizing* Candace Owens. This would imply they were taking a financial loss to have her there.
Shapiro and Rubin, however, have also been massive critics of cancel culture. How did cancel culture get its name? From a campaign to cancel The Colbert Report over a tweet. Much of cancel culture is about inflicting professional harm for bad opinions. newyorker.com/news/news-desk…
At this point I treat Scott Alexander's writing as an infohazzard. Unless you are willing to check his facts and citations, it is probably inadvisable to read his material, as it is constructed to build a compelling narrative.
But watch the lemmings line up and jump off a cliff, obviously taking Scott Alexander, who has already admitted to falsely accusing multiple scientists, at his word.
Unless and until Scott Alexander commits to adopting a robust editorial process where blatant errors that are reported to him are corrected promptly, his work should be read as fiction "based on a real story, sorta".
To coin a term, this FDA tweet was a "narrative scaffold". After the narrative solidifies, it doesn't matter if the scaffold is taken down. Nobody will remember how things started anyway.
It's a synchronization signal for the elites to line up and promote the approved narrative. Once all the relevant people are committed, opponents' reputations destroyed, the original signal can go away, and the hive mind will continue singing to the same tune.
Other examples of narrative scaffolds? Where to start.
For one, the Steele dossier that led to the years and years of Russiagate garbage.
Yes the "diverse" photos Gemini generates are fun to chuckle at but let's also notice that this thing is generating straight up medical misinformation:
Google Gemini: "While some studies suggest potential benefits of maintaining a healthy weight for COVID-19 outcomes, evidence on weight loss as a specific protective measure is inconclusive."
Google Gemini: "There's no evidence that the spike protein in COVID-19 vaccines is directly cytotoxic. These vaccines only contain the genetic instructions for making the protein, not the fully formed protein itself."
I would like to use the occasion of this clip to remind everyone that the TOGETHER trial has still not released the raw data as it promised to do in its journal submission.
All the big name accounts complaining about fraudulent ivm studies have said NOTHING about this scandal.
I even offered Scott Alexander $25k of my own money if he would help get it released and he didn't move a finger.
Following the ivm rabbit hole has been the fastest way to find out that practically nobody from the medical establishment cares about the actual facts on the ground. Just posturing and repeating the hive mind talking points.
Thank God for whistleblowers, I have gotten access to the interim analyses from this trial, and when I publish them, the fraudulent nature of its conduct will be clear to anyone who cares to know about it.